mi 


:?J^v::. 


i   ■ 


■;  / 


:'    r* 


'    :      ■  M  if  ' 

,  ■^^>V^'^- 


r'.' 


f,' 


bIBUAR^ 


,M 


im. 


87  ^ 


its,    ^.:  -^    ' 


r^ 


j  Ai  BAWCROFTi 


■-.V 


>♦ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/essaystheologicaOOdodarich 


ESSAYS, 


/^^ 


THEOLOGICAL    AND   MISCELLANEOUS 


REPRINTED   FROM    THE 


PRINCETON   R  E  V  O  W'^c       y 


SECOND    SERIES. 


INCLUDING   THE   CONTRIBUTIONS   OF    THE    LATE 


REV.   ALBERT    B.  DOD,  D.D 


NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON, 

WILEY    AND    PUTNAM. 

1847. 


'v.tT  jmm  nsT/fiiMi*'^ 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1847,  by 

WILEY  &  PUTNAM, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


,   CRAIGHKA.D,  PRINTER, 
112  FULTON  STREET. 


PREFACE. 


This  volume,  like  that  which  preceded  it  a  year  ago,  though  entirely 
composed  of  selections  from  the  Princeton  Review,  is  not  made  up  by 
the  Conductors  of  that  valuable  publication. 

It  is  with  no  common  satisfaction  that  the  collector  of  these  tract* 
presents  as  many  as  seven  from  the  pen  of  the  late  distinguished 
Professor  Dod.  They  are  the  articles  on  Capital  Punishment,  Phreno- 
logy, the  Vestiges  of  Creation,  Analytical  Geometry,  and  Oxford 
Architecture,  together  with  the  Reviews  of  Mr.  Finney  and  Dr. 
Beecher.  These  Essays  are  the  best  extant  testimonial  to  the  genius 
and  cultivation  of  their  lamented  author. 

The  article  on  Hebrew  Concordances  is  also  a  memorial  of  departed 
intellect ;  being  a  production  of  the  late  Professor  Nordheimer. 

Several  of  the  remaining  Essays  in  this  volume  awakened  extraordi- 
nary interest  at  the  time  of  their  publication :  among  these  may  be 
named  those  on  Slavery  and  Abolition,  and  that  on  the  Baptist 
Translation  of  the  Bible. 

The  rapid  sale  of  the  former  volume  makes  us  secure  in  regard  to 
that  which  is  now  offered. 

JVew  York,  April  15,  1847. 


# 

» 


aa  A 


CONTENTS. 


ESSAT 


Pag9 

IT    I.    TheBible,  a  Key  to  the  Phenomena  of  the  Natural  World         .            1 

.     II.    God  the  End  of  all  Things            .... 

15 

III.    Systems  of  Theology 

33 

•    IV.     On  the  Atonement 

49 

V.    On  Revivals  of  Religion    . 

76 

VI.    Dr.  Beecher's  Theology    . 

152 

VII.    The  Doctrines  of  New  England  Churches 

206 

VIII.    Christian  Union                ... 

236 

IX.    The  Division  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 

259 

.      X.    Slavery                  .... 

282 

.     XI.    Abolitionism                    .           .           . 

313 

XII.     Capital  Punishment         .           .           . 

343 

.  XIII.    Phrenology           .... 

376 

.  XIV.    Vestiges  of  Creation 

411 

.    XV.    Analytical  Geometry 

454 

.  XVI.     Baptist  Translation  of  the  Bible 

467 

•  XVII.     The  English  Bible 

503 

•XVIII.    Oxford  Architecture      . 

527 

.  XIX.     A  Treatise  on  Expository  Preaching      . 

536 

-    XX.     Fiirst's  Hebrew  Concordance     . 

555 

.  XXI.    The  Historical  Statements  of  the  Koran 

584 

i 


ESSAY   I. 

THE    BIBLE 

A  KEY  TO  THE  PHENOMENA  OF  THE  NATURAL  WORLD. 

PUBLISHED    IN     1829. 


The  stupendous  fabric  of  the  universe,  part  of  which  we  see, 
and  part  of  which  we  ourselves  are,  cannot  but  become  an  object 
of  earnest  contemplation  to  the  inquisitive  mind.  The  great 
majority  of  men,  it  is  true,  pass  through  life  without  reflection. 
Their  intellectual  powers  are  so  little  cultivated,  and  they  are  so 
much  occupied  with  objects  of  sense,  and  in  making  provision  for 
their  immediate  and  pressing  wants,  that  they  never  attempt  to 
raise  their  minds  to  the  contemplation  of  the  wonderful  works  by 
which  they  are  surrounded :  but  these  objects,  constantly  beheld 
from  infancy,  excite  no  surprise,  and  seldom  call  forth  a  single 
reflection.  There  have  always  been,  however,  among  nations 
enjoying  any  degree  of  civilization,  men  of  minds  more  cul- 
tivated than  the  rest,  and  more  disposed  to  investigate  the  causes 
of  those  phenomena  which  they  continually  beheld.  These  sages, 
when  they  looked  upon  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  upon  themselves 
and  other  organized  and  living  beings,  have  been  led  to  inquire. 
Whence  all  these  things?  Have  they  always  existed,  or  have 
they  been  produced?  To  those  who  have  been  conversant  with 
the  truth  all  their  lives,  it  may  seem  that  it  would  have  been  an 
easy  thing  for  any  rational  mind  to  ascend  at  once  from  the  crea- 
ture to  the  invisible  Creator ;  but  we  cannot  readily  conceive  of 
the  perplexity  and  darkness  which  surround  the  intellect  of  men, 
whom  no  ray  of  divine  revelation  has  visited.  The  reasonings  of 
such  men  are  also  impeded  and  perverted  by  prejudices,  and 
erroneous  opinions  imbibed  from  their  forefathers  ;  and,  not  unfre- 
quently,  pride  and  other  evil  passions  influence  speculative  men  to 
adopt  extravagant  opinions,  for  the  sake  of  their  paradoxical  cha- 
racter, or  because  they  are  naturally  grateful  to  the  feelings  of  de- 
praved nature.  It  is,  therefore,  not  an  unaccountable  fact,  that 
men,  unenlightened  by  divine  revelation,  should  have  fallen  into  so 

1 


2  THE    BIBLE    A    KEY    TO    THE 

many  egregious  errors  respecting  the  origin  of  the  world  and  its 
inhabitants. 

A  considerable  number  of  those  called  philosophers  entertained 
the  opinion,  that  the  ujiiverse  always  existed  as  we  now  behold  it. 
They  observed  that,  from  age  to  age,  the  heavenly  bodies  move  on 
in  their  orbits,  undisturbed  and  unchanged  ;  and  that,  on  earth,  the 
same  changes  of  day  and  night,  of  winter  and  summer,  of  seed- 
time and  harvest,  succeed  each  other  in  regular  order :  and  no  other 
power  being  manifest  to  the  senses  but  that  which  operates  through 
all  nature,  they  concluded  that  the  universe  existed  without  any 
cause  of  itself;  and  that  it  ever  had  existed,  aiadever  would  exist, 
as  it  now  appears. 

Some,  however,  observing  in  all  things,  as  they  imagined,  a 
tendency  to  dissolution,  and  perceiving  in  our  globe  evidences  of  a 
former  destruction,  adopted  the  opinion,  that  the  universe  contained 
in  itself  the  principles  of  its  own  dissolution  and  regeneration ; 
that,  after  running  through  a  period  of  unknown  and  inconceivable 
duration,  it  falls  into  a  chaotic  state,  in  which  catastrophe  all 
organized  bodies  are  destroyed,  and  return  to  their  simplest  ele- 
ments; but,  from  this  chaos,  by  degrees,  springs  up  a  aew  order 
of  things,  or  a  renewal  of  that  which  before  existed  ;  and  thus, 
while  they  conceived  the  universe  to  be  eternal,  they  imagined 
that  it  is  in  a  state  of  perpetual  change,  by  a  kind  of  circular  pro- 
gression, which  has  neither  beginning  nor  end- 
Others  of  those  called  philosophers,  who  seem  to  have  paid  a 
more  minute  attention  to  the  curious  structure  of  organized  bodies, 
were  of  opinion  that  they  must  by  some  means  have  been  formed 
or  produced;  but,  not  being  able  to  rise  to  the  conception  of  a 
Creator — or  what  is  more  probable,  not  liking  to  retain  the  idea  of 
God  in  their  minds — they  invented  the  -hypothesis  of  the  eternal 
existence  of  the  elements  of  the  universe,  which  they  supposed  to 
consist  of  atoms,  or  indivisible  bodies  of  all  manner  of  shapes,  and 
in  perpetual  motion  among  each  other.  These  atoms,  possessing 
various  affinities,  came  together  in  every  conceivable  form  of 
organized  bodies,  until,  by  degrees,  and  in  a  long  process  of  time, 
the  universe  assumed  its  present  aspect,  and  vegetables  and  ani- 
mals of  every  species  were  produced  by  the  fortuitous  concourse 
of  atoms. 

Such  a  hypothesis  might  seem  too  absurd  to  be  seriously  enter- 
tained by  any  rational  mind,  and  yet  we  find  among  its  abettors, 
men  of  high  and  cultivated  intellect,  among  the  ancients.  It  has, 
however,  met  with  less  favour  among  modern  atheists  than  the 
fore- mentioned  theories  ;  although,  in  point  of  absurdity,  all  sys- 
tems of  atheism  may  be  said  to  stand  on  a  perfect  level ;  for  no 
folly  can  be  conceived  greater  than  that  which  says,  "  there  is  no 
Ood." 

The  idea  of  the  necessity  of  a  cause,  wherever  we  observe  what 
we  must  consider  an  effect,  is  so  deeply  seated  in  human  nature, 
.4hat  most  men  have  professed  themselves  dissatisfied  with  any  system 


PHENOMENA    OF    THE    NATURAL    WORLD.  3 

which  assigned  no  cause,  or  no  better  cause  than  chance  or  neces- 
sity, for  the  existence  of  all  things.  Many  have  been  led,  there- 
fore, to  adopt  the  opinion,  that  the  universe  v^^as  God,  believing 
that  whatever  distinctness  and  variety  there  may  seem  to  be  in 
the  world,  there  existed  but  one  substance  or  being,  of  which  the 
heavens  and  the  earth,  vegetables  and  animals,  are  only  so  many 
parts,  or  rather  manifestations.  This  theory  differs  from  the  first 
mentioned  in  this  important  respect,  that  it  recognises  a  great  first 
cause,  which  is  God  ;  but  the  difference,  as  to  any  useful  end,  is 
more  in  appearance  than  in  reality ;  for,  according  to  this  hypo- 
thesis, there  is  still  nothing  in  existence  besides  the  universe  itself. 
There  is  no  free,  sovereign,  independent  being,  whom  we  should 
worship  or  obey  ;  or  in  whom  we  can  confide  for  help  or  safety. 
In  fact  it  differs  from  blank  atheism  in  nothing,  except  that  it  gives 
the  name  of  God  to  the  universe  of  creatures  ;  and  thus  we  come 
to  the  horrible  conclusion,  that  we  and  all  other  things  are  parts 
of  God. 

Although  this  hypothesis  had  its  advocates  among  the  ancients, 
yet  Benedict  Spinoza  has  the  credit  of  reducing  it  to  a  regular 
system,  which  he  exhibited  in  the  imposing  form  of  mathematical 
demonstration.  As  this  atheistical  theory  was  published  in  an 
enlightened  age,  and  in  a  Christian  country,  it  might  have  been 
expected  that  it  would  attract  but  few  admirers :  and,  indeed,  the 
number  of  avowed  disciples  of  Spinozism  has  been  small ;  yet  the 
same  system,  new-modelled  but  not  improved,  has  become  a 
favourite  with  a  large  number  of  philosophers  of  the  present  day, 
on  the  continent  of  Europe,  and  especially  in  Germany,  under  the 
approjwiate  name  of  Pantheism.  And  so  great  is  the  infatuation 
of  some  calling  themselves  Christians,  that  they  have  thought  that 
this  disguised  atheism  mi^ht  be  reconciled  with  Christianity. 

A  system  less  absurd  than  any  of  the  former  was,  that  the  world 
has  an  all-pervading,  active,  and  intelligent  soul,  which  moves  and 
directs  all  the  operations  of  nature,  as  the  human  soul  moves  and 
governs  the  body. 

Near  akm  to  this,  was  the  opinion  that  the  planets  and  stars 
were  all  aniniated  bodies,  possessed  of  the  power  of  moving  them- 
selves, and  of  intelligence  sufficient  to  guide  and  regulate  their 
own  motions. 

Many  students  of  the  physical  sciences,  in  our  times,  seem  to 
have  adopted  a  theory  similar  to  that  which  gives  a  soul  to  the 
world.  They  ascribe  all  effects  to  nature,  and  to  the  laws  of 
nature.  In  all  the  remarkable  contrivances  and  evidences  of 
design,  which  abound  in  the  animal  and  vegetable  worlds,  they 
see  nothing  but  the  plastic  power  of  nature.  The  idea  of  a  God, 
distinct  from  the  world,  and  from  whom  nature  derives  all  its 
powers,  seems  to  have  no  place  in  their  philosophy. 

But  sometimes  the  doctrine  of  the  soul  of  the  world  has  been 
combined  with  that  of  one  supreme  God,  as  in  the  sublime  but 
mystical  theory  of  Plata 


4  THE    BIBLE    A    KEY    TO    THE 

From  what  has  been  said  it  is  evident  that  the  human  intellect 
is  prone  to  wander  from  the  truth ;  and  that  reason  is  liable  to  be 
perverted,  even  in  matters  of  the  highest  importance  ;  and  in  which 
the  light  of  evidence  seems  to  us  to  shine  most  clearly. 

A  just  and  impartial  consideration  of  the  universe  cannot  fail  to 
lead  the  sincere  seeker  of  truth  to  the  opinion,  that  there  must 
exist  a  first  great  cause,  powerful  and  intelligent,  who  has  made 
the  world  for  some  particular  end.  As  sound  reason  would  con- 
strain us,  if  we  should  find  a  curiously  contrived  machine,  evidently 
formed  for  a  useful  purpose,  to  ascribe  it  to  an  intelligent  artificer, 
how  can  we  refuse  to  ascribe  the  structure  of  the  universe,  in 
which  the  evidences  of  design  are  more  numerous  and  more  strik- 
ing, infinitely,  than  in  any  of  the  works  of  men,  to  a  wise  and 
powerful  architect  ?  If  a  watch  or  steam-engine  could  not  be 
formed  by  the  accidental  aggregation  of  particles,  brought  together 
by  the  winds  or  waves,  can  we  suppose  that  such  a  structure  as  an 
organized  animal  body  could  be  formed  by  a  fortuitous  concourse 
of  atoms  ?  There  is  in  a  small  part  of  the  human  body,  more  pro- 
found wisdom  in  designing  the  texture  and  organization  of  the 
parts  for  the  attainment  of  a  particular  end,  than  in  all  the  curious 
mechanism  of  man's  contrivance.  And  if  we  should  even  suppose 
(absurd  as  it  is)  that  such  an  organized  system  could  come  into 
existence  without  design,  how  could  we  account  for  the  wonderful 
adaptation  of  other  things,  existing  in  an  entirely  separate  state,  to 
the  necessities  and  conveniences  of  the  animal  body  ?  Without 
light  the  eye  would  be  useless,  but  when  we  examine  the  mecha- 
nism of  this  organ,  and  observe  that  it  is  constructed  upon  the  most 
perfect  principles  of  optics,  can  we  for  a  moment  hesitate  to  believe 
that  the  eye  was  formed  by  a  designing  agent,  to  receive,  refract, 
and  concentrate  the  rays  of  light,  for  the  purposes  of  vision?  The 
same  adaptation  is  remarkable,  between  the  air  and  the  organ  of 
hearing ;  and  between  the  air  and  the  lungs :  the  same  is  also  true, 
in  regard  to  the  stomach  and  the  food  which  it  so  eagerly  craves. 
In  these,  and  a  thousand  other  things,  the  evidences  of  design  are 
as  strong  as  they  possibly  can  be.  If  we  can  resist  these,  no 
other  proofs  would  answer  any  purpose  in  removing  our  incredu- 
lity. 

Reason,  then,  clearly  indicates,  that  this  universe  is  not  God,  but 
is  the  work  of  God,  and  that  he  must  be  a  being  of  transcendent 
perfection.  But  having  arrived  at  this  conclusion,  who  would  not 
wish  to  have  his  faith  confirmed  by  some  clear  manifestation  of 
this  august  Being  ?  If  he  exists  and  formed  our  bodies,  and  gave 
us  our  rational  powers,  surely  he  can  find  out  ways  by  which  he 
can  make  himself  known  to  us.  He  cannot,  indeed,  render  himself 
visible  to  our  bodily  eyes,  because  he  is  a  spirit ;  but  he  who 
indued  man  with  the  faculty  of  communicating  with  his  fellows, 
by  the  use  of  speech,  can  speak  to  us  in  a  language  which  we  can 
understand.  Now  this  very  thing  he  has  done,  by  divine  revela- 
tion.    By  inspiring  chosen  individuals,  and  attesting  their  commu- 


PHENOMENA    OP    THE    NATURAL    WORLD.  9 

nications,  he  has  plainly  informed  us,  not  only  that  he  exists,  but 
that  he  is  the  Creator,  Preserver,  and  Governor  of  the  universe ; 
that  he  is  above  all,  and  independent  of  all ;  and  that  all  things 
were  produced  by  his  own  pleasure,  and  for  his  own  glory. 

That  which  reason  often  missed,  or  mistook,  and  at  best  spelled 
out  with  hesitation,  the  voice  of  revelation  declares  with  decisive 
authority. 

Reason  may  vaunt  herself  when  the  discovery  is  made,  but  she 
owes  her  clearest  light  and  firmest  convictions  to  the  voice  of 
inspiration. 

The  Bible  furnishes  the  full  and  satisfactory  commentary  on  the 
book  of  nature.  With  the  Bible  in  our  hands,  the  heavens  shine 
with  redoubled  lustre.  The  universe,  which  to  the  atheist  is  full 
of  darkness  and  confusion,  to  the  Christian  is  resplendent  with  light 
and  glory.  The  first  sentence  in  the  Bible  contains  more  to  sa- 
tisfy the  inquisitive  mind  than  all  the  volumes  of  human  specula- 
tion. "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth." 
Here,  in  a  few  words,  is  comprehended  the  most  sublime  of  all 
truths — the  production  of  a  universe  out  of  nothing,  by  the  word 
of  the  Almighty.  If  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  then 
he  existed  before  they  were  brought  forth,  even  from  eternity ;  for 
he  who  gives  beginning  to  all  other  things,  can  have  none  himself. 
Before  the  world  was,  this  august  Being  existed,  independent 
and  happy,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  own  infinite  perfections.  This 
first  word  of  written  revelation  teaches  us,  what  reason  in  her 
boldest  flights  could  never  reach,  namely,  that  the  universe  sprang 
from  nothing :  not  from  nothing  as  its  cause,  but  from  the  incon- 
ceivable working  of  almighty  power,  where  nothing  existed,  from 
which  it  could  be  made.  None  of  the  heathen  sages  ever  believed 
such  a  creation  possible.  They  universally  received  it  as  an 
axiom,  that  ex  nihilo  nihil  fieri ;  but  here  we  learn,  "  That  the 
worlds  were  framed  by  the  word  of  God,  and  that  the  things 
which  are  seen,  were  not  made  of  things  which  do  appear."  This 
stupendous  work,  of  giving  being  to  so  great  a  multitude  and 
variety  of  creatures,  is  often  celebrated  in  the  sublime  strains  of 
sacred  poetry,  and  in  the  commanding  eloquence  of  the  inspired 
prophets.  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  that  created  the  heavens  and 
stretched  them  out,  he  that  spread  forth  the  earth  and  that  which 
cometh  out  of  it."  "  Which  made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea,  and 
all  that  therein  is."  "  He  hath  made  the  earth  by  his  power,  he 
hath  established  the  world  by  his  wisdom,  and  hath  stretched  out 
the  heavens  by  his  discretion." 

"  O  Lord  God,  behold  thou  hast  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth, 
by  thy  great  power." 

"  The  Lord  which  stretched  forth  the  heavens,  and  layeth  the 
foundations  of  the  earth,  and  formeth  the  spirit  of  man  within  him." 

The  apostles  tread  in  the  footsteps  of  the  prophets,  in  ascribing 
the  creation  of  the  universe  to  God  alone,  "  The  living  God,  which 
made  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  all  things  therein." 


6  THE    BIBLE    A    KEY    TO    THE 

"  God  that  made  the  world  and  all  things  therein."  "  For  the 
invisible  things  of  him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly- 
seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  his  eter- 
nal power  and  Godhead." 

"  He  that  built  all  things  is  God." 

With  such  declarations  as  these,  coming  from  the  mouth  of  God 
himself,  how  is  the  mind  enlarged  and  elevated,  in  contemplating 
the  heavens  and  the  earth  !  How  grand,  how  beautiful,  how  wise, 
how  harmonious  is  the  universe, when  viewed  through  the  medium 
of  divine  revelation.  "  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God, 
and  the  firmament  showeth  his  handy  work  ;  day  unto  day  utter- 
eth  speech,  and  night  unto  night  teacheth  knowledge." 

"  O  Lord  our  Lord,  how  excellent  is  thy  name  in  all  the  earth ! 
who  hast  set  thy  glory  above  the  heavens."  "  When  I  consider 
thy  heavens,  the  work  of  thy  fingers,  the  moon  and  the  stars  which 
thou  hast  ordained  ;  what  is  man  that  thou  art  mindful  of  him  ! 
And  the  son  of  man  that  thou  visitest  him  ?" 

Without  the  book  of  revelation,  the  book  of  nature  would  be  as 
a  volume  sealed  ;  but  with  this  key  we  can  open  its  wonderful 
pages,  and  receive  instruction  from  every  creature  of  God. 

But  let  us  descend  from  the  contemplation  of  the  universe,  to 
the  consideration  of  some  of  its  parts.  Here  are  the  race  of  man- 
kind, and  multitudes  of  living  creatures,  in  the  earth,  the  air,  and 
the  water  ;  whence  have  they  proceeded  ?  What  can  reason  and 
philosophy  answer  ?  Had  man  and  the  other  animals  a  beginning, 
or  were  they  from  eternity  I  If  the  former,  from  what  cause,  and 
by  what  steps  did  they  arrive  at  their  present  condition  ?  On  no 
subject  has  philosophy  betrayed  her  weakness  more  than  in  her 
speculations  respecting  the  origin  of  the  human  race.  It  would 
be  poorly  worth  our  while  to  review  the  absurd  theories  of  an^ 
cient  and  modern  philosophers,  which  more  resemble  the  dreams 
of  the  sick  than  the  sober  deductions  of  reason.  One  will  give  to 
the  earth  we  know  not  what  prolific  power  to  produce  men  and 
animals  ;  another  chooses  to  place  man,  in  his  origin  on  a  level 
with  the  speechless  brutes,  from  which  condition  he  is  supposed  to 
arise  by  long  and  assiduous  exertion ;.  acquiring  for  himself  the 
use  of  articulate  and  written  language,  and  inventing,  from  time  to 
time,  all  the  arts  which  now  minister  to  the  comfort  of  civilized 
life.  But  such  theories  are  too  absurd  for  refutation.  The  idea 
of  the  production  of  animals  or  vegetables,  by  what  was  called 
equivocal  generation,  that  is,  without  progenitors,  or  organized 
seeds  and  roots,  has  long  since  been  exploded.  Experiments  the 
most  decisive  have  demonstrated  the  falsehood  of  the  notions  en- 
tertained by  the  ancients,  of  the  generation  of  animated  beings 
from  mere  corruption.  The  men  and  animals,  now  on  the  earth, 
belong  to  a  series  reaching  back  to  eternity ;  or  they  were  formed, 
and  placed  on  our  globe,  by  an  almighty  Being.  Let  us  then,  for 
a  moment,  look  at  the  theory  which  assigns  to  man  an  existence 
without  beginning.     While  the  individuals  die,  the  species  is  ina- 


PHENOMENA    OF    THE    NATURAL    WORLD.  7 

mortal.  If  such  a  hypothesis  does  not  do  violence  to  common 
sense,  it  would  be  difficult  to  say  what  does.  Each  individual  is 
dependent,  and  yet  the  whole  series  of  individuals  independent. 
The  absurdity  and  contradiction  of  such  a  theory  are  concealed 
only  by  the  darkness  of  eternity.  By  running  back  until  we  are 
overwhelmed  with  a  subject  which  our  minds  cannot  grasp,  we 
are  apt  to  lose  sight  of  the  unreasonableness  of  a  supposition, 
which  on  a  limited  scale  every  one  can  clearly  see.  As  if  one 
should  say,  here  is  a  chain  suspended,  consisting  of  a  thousand 
links,  each  one  depending  on  the  next  above  it ;  could  such  a  chain 
of  a  thousand  links  remain  suspended,  without  anything  to  sup- 
port it  ?  To  such  a  problem  every  child  would  give  the  correct 
answer.  The  thing  is  manifestly  impossible.  Well,  suppose  the 
number  of  links  be  increased  to  a  hundred  million,  could  the  chain 
support  itself  any  better  than  when  it  consisted  of  a  thousand,  or 
even  ten  links  ?  Certainly  not,  would  be  the  answer  of  every  per- 
son of  common  sense  ;  and  such  a  person  would  be  apt  to  say,  the 
more  links  there  are  in  the  chain,  the  more  support  does  it  require, 
seeing  its  tendency  to  fall  will  be  in  proportion  to  its  weight.  But 
then,  suppose  the  links  so  increased,  that  our  minds  can  no  longer 
conceive  of  the  number,  will  such  an  increase,  however  great  it 
may  be,  render  a  support  less  necessary  ?  The  answer  ought  to 
be  as  decisively  as  before,  in  the  negative.  We  have  seen  that 
the  increase  of  the  number,  while  within  the  limits  of  our  concep- 
tion, did  not  lessen  the  necessity  for  a  supporting  power ;  and  why 
should  such  an  increase  as  goes  far  beyond  our  power  of  imagina- 
tion be  supposed  to  have  this  effect  ?  The  idea  of  a  series  of  men 
without  beginning,  without  any  Creator  to  give  them  being,  is 
one  of  the  greatest  absurdities  which  can  be  conceived. 

Besides,  when  we  consider  the  number  of  men  ;  when  we  trace 
their  history  ;  when  we  reflect  upon  their  small  advancement  in  the 
arts  and  sciences  ;  and  how  recent  the  most  useful  inventions  are ; 
how  can  we,  unless  we  renounce  our  reason,  believe  that  mankind 
have  existed  on  this  globe  from  eternity  ?  The  thing  is  impos- 
sible. The  only  reasonable  hypothesis  therefore  is,  that  the  hu- 
man race,  together  with  the  various  species  of  animals  and  vege- 
tables, had  a  beginning  ;  and  that  they  were  created  by  a  wise  and 
omnipotent  Being,  by  whose  care  and  sustaining  power  they  are 
still  preserved. 

But  man  feels  too  little  satisfied  with  his  own  reasonings  to  rest 
contented  with  such  conclusions  as  he  can  himself  deduce.  He 
wishes  to  see  the  face,  or  hear  the  voice,  of  his  great  Creator.  He 
wants  an  explicit  declaration  from  the  mouth  of  his  Father  in  hea- 
ven, assuring  him  of  the  truth  of  his  own  reasonings ;  and  author- 
izing him  to  claim  the  relation  of  a  creature,  formed  by  the  power 
and  goodness  of  God. 

Such  a  desire  of  divine  instruction  is  neither  sinful  nor  unrea- 
sonable in  creatures  situated  as  we  are.  Who  would  not  wish  to 
know  his  own  earthly  father  ?     And  who  would  like,  on  such  & 


8  THE    BIBLE    A    KEY    TO    THE 

subject,  to  be  left  to  reasonings  founded  on  abstract  principles  ? 
But  how  much  more  interesting  is  it  for  us  to  know  our  heavenly^- 
Father,  to  whom  we  owe  our  very  being,  with  all  its  faculties  and 
capacities?  Now,  this  reasonable  desire  the  great  Creator  has 
condescended  to  gratify.  He  has,  in  the  revelation  which  is  con- 
tained in  the  holy  Scriptures,  informed  us,  not  only  that  he  is  our 
Maker,  but  has  given  us  most  particular  information  of  the  time 
and  circumstances  of  man's  creation.  After  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,  and  beasts,  fishes,  and  birds,  were  formed  ;  in  short,  after  all 
things  on  earth  were  created,  God,  speaking  in  the  glorious  council 
of  his  own  being,  said,  "  Come,  let  us  make  man  in  our  own  image, 
and  after  our  own  likeness  ;  and  let  them  have  dominion  over  the 
fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle, 
and  over  all  the  earth."  "  So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image  ; 
in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him."  "  And  the  Lord  God  formed 
man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the 
breath  of  life  :  and  man  became  a  living  soul."  "  And  the  Lord 
God  said,  it  is  not  good  that  the  man  should  be  alone,  I  will  make 
an  help  meet  for  him."  "  And  the  Lord  God  caused  a  deep  sleep 
to  fall  upon  Adam ;  and  he  slept,  and  he  took  one  of  his  ribs,  and 
closed  up  the  flesh  instead  thereof.  And  the  rib  which  the  Lord 
God  had  taken  from  man  made  he  a  woman,  and  brought  her  unto 
the  man ;  and  Adam  said,  this  is  now  bone  of  my  bone,  and  flesh 
of  my  flesh  ;  she  shall  be  called  woman,  because  she  was  taken  out 
of  man." 

We  have  somewhere  met  with  an  account  of  an  infidel,  more  in- 
genious than  wise,  who  proposed  to  put  the  Mosaic  history  to  the 
test,  by  examining  whether  man  was  deficient  of  a  rib  in  one  of  his 
sides.  It  would  have  been  as  reasonable  to  have  examined  whether 
every  male  descendant  of  Adam  had  the  scar  of  the  wound  made 
in  the  side  of  the  first  man.  If  Adam  had  remained,  all  his  life, 
destitute  of  the  rib  which  was  taken  away,  why  should  it  be  sup- 
posed that  this  defect  should  be  transmitted  to  his  posterity  ?  But 
he  laboured  under  no  such  defect,  for  the  opening  made  was 
closed  up  with  flesh  instead  of  that  which  was  taken  away.  The 
rib  was  not  taken  on  account  of  any  difficulty  to  obtain  materials, 
but  to  show  that  a  man  and  his  wife  were  one,  and  that  a  man 
should  ever  cherish  his  wife  as  his  own  flesh.  The  word  here  trans- 
lated rib,  properly  means,  a  side :  for  aught  that  appears,  the  whole 
side  of  the  man  might  have  been  taken,  to  form  the  woman  ;  but 
this  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence. 

Infidels  have  been  fond  of  turning  this  simple  and  beautiful  his- 
tory of  the  formation  of  the  first  man  and  the  first  woman  into 
ridicule  ;  but  if  man  had  a  beginning,  and  was  created  by  the  Al- 
mighty, what  account  could  be  imagined  more  natural  and  reason- 
able than  this  ?  Let  the  scoflfer  produce  his  own  hypothesis,  and 
subject  it  to  the  test  of  examination — but  he  has  none.  He  laughs 
at  the  Bible  history,  and  at  the  same  time  has  nothing  to  furnish  as 
a  substitute.     But  to  men  of  sober  minds,  who  wish  to  be  acquainted 


PHENOMENA    OF    THE    NATURAL    WORLD.  9 

with  their  own  origin,  this  narrative  is  most  satisfactory  and  in- 
structive. We  know  that  man  must  have  had  a  beginning,  and 
consequently  a  Creator ;  but  reason  could  not  inform  us  how,  or 
in  what  circumstances,  he  commenced  his  existence :  thaU  there- 
fore, which  we  wish  to  know,  and  need  to  know,  is  distinctly  re- 
vealed, and  plainly  recorded  in  the  Bible.  Man,  instead  of  being 
from  eternity,  is  of  yesterday ;  instead  of  springing,  hke  a  mush- 
room, from  the  putrid  earth,  he  came  from  the  forming  hand  of  the 
great  Creator ;  instead  of  being  at  first  an  ape  or  ourang  outang, 
he  was  made  in  the  likeness  and  after  the  similitude  of  God.  The 
Bible,  then,  explains  to  us  our  own  origin,  and  the  origin  of  all 
creatures.  It  teaches  that  man  was  made  out  of  the  clay  of  the 
earth,  but  this  clay  was  wrought  into  shape,  and  wonderfully  and 
fearfully  organized,  by  a  divine  hand. 

The  physical  history  of  man  exhibits  some  very  remarkable 
phenomena;  among  which  none  have  attracted  the  attention  of  the 
inquisitive  so  much  as  the  striking  variety  in  the  complexion,  hair, 
size,  and  figure  of  the  species  in  different  countries.  Of  complexion 
we  find  every  shade  of  colour  from  white  to  sooty  black ;  and  of 
hair,  from  the  silken  or  flaxen  locks  of  the  North  of  Europe,  to  the 
crisped  and  curled  wool  of  the  Guinea  negro.  In  the  formation 
and  prominence  of  the  nose,  lips,  and  cheeks,  there  is  also  a  re- 
markable difference  in  different  nations.  These  striking  and  nu- 
merous varieties  have  led  some  philosophers  to  adopt  the  opinion, 
that  mankind  are  not  descended  from  one  stock ;  but  that  originally 
there  must  have  been  parents  corresponding  with  the  several  classes 
of  men.  It  is  an  obvious  objection  to  this  theory,  that  the  several 
complexions  of  mankind  are  not  distinctly  marked,  but  run  into 
each  other  by  imperceptible  shades  ;  so  that  if  we  suppose  more 
species  of  men  than  one,  we  know  not  where  to  stop.  If  every 
considerable  variety  must  be  the  foundation  of  a  distinct  species, 
we  must  adopt  the  hypothesis  that,  originally,  God  created  a  mul- 
titude of  human  beings  of  different  complexions. 

It  is  also  a  fact  unfavourable  to  this  hypothesis,  that  there  are 
striking  varieties  in  complexion,  hair,  &c.,  among  those  known  to 
have  proceeded  from  one  stock.  In  the  same  nation,  some  whole 
families  or  tribes  are  distinguished  by  fair  hair  and  a  ruddy  com- 
plexion ;  while  others  are  equally  remarkable  for  dark  complexion, 
and  black  hair  and  eyes.  These  varieties  in  the  same  nation  are 
known  also  to  be  transmitted  from  father  to  son,  for  many  genera- 
tions. But  we  are  unable  to  account  for  this  variety ;  and  if  such 
a  difference  may  take  place  when  the  external  circumstances  are 
nearly  similar,  why  may  not  the  greater  varieties  of  the  human 
species  be  owing  to  the  great  difference  of  climate  and  other  cir- 
cumstances of  the  nations  of  the  earth  ? 

Since  a  more  accurate  knowledge  has  been  obtained  of  the  nu- 
merous tribes  inhabiting  the  islands  of  the  great  South  Sea,  some 
very  interesting  facts  have  been  brought  to  light,  respecting  the 
origin  of  these  insulated  savages.     The  information  collected  by 


10  THE    BIBLE    A    KEY    TO    THE 

Dr.  Prichard,  and  published  in  his  Physical  History  of  Man,  goes 
far  to  prove,  that  men  who  have  at  a  reniote  period  sprung  from 
the  same  stock,  may  so  diverge  from  each  other,  in  features,  com- 
plexion, hair,  &c.,  that  they  form  distinct  classes,  and  seem  to  be  as 
widely  apart  from  each  other  as  almost  any  of  the  differing  tribes 
of  men.  The  identity  of  the  origin  of  some  of  these  islanders, 
whose  appearance  is  so  dissimilar,  is  ascertained  by  the  radical 
sameness  of  their  language ;  and  it  is  a  thing  unknown  in  the  his- 
tory of  savages  to  change  their  vernacular  tougue.  It  is  manifest, 
therefore,  that  there  are  natural  causes  in  operation,  whether  we 
understand  what  they  are  or  not,  sufficient  to  produce  all  the  vari- 
eties observed  in  the  human  species. 

The  diversity  of  features  and  complexion  in  the  Jews,  who  have 
long  resided  in  widely  different  climates,  and  who  it  is  known  do 
not  intermix  with  other  people,  affords  a  strong  confirmation  of 
the  same  truth. 

It  is  also  as  remarkable  as  it  is  obvious,  that,  for  the  most  part, 
men  of  a  certain  complexion  are  found  in  a  particular  latitude, 
unless  they  have  been  recently  removed  from  their  own  country. 
We  do  not  find  the  black  skin  and  crisped  hair  in  high  latitudes ; 
nor  the  fair  complexion  and  light-coloured  hair  under  the  equator. 
From  the  first  glance,  therefore,  it  would  seem  that  there  is  some 
connexion  between  climate  and  the  complexion.  Whether  a 
difference  of  climate  is  sufficient  of  itself  to  account  for  these 
varieties,  need  not  be  determined.  There  may  be  other  causes 
combined  with  this,  some  of  which  may  be  unknown  to  us.  Ani- 
mals carried  from  the  temperate  regions,  far  ta  the  north,  become 
white,  and  their  fur  becomes  much  thicker  and  warmer.  The 
final  cause  of  this  change  is  manifest,  and  indicates  the  wisdom 
and  goodness  of  the  great  Creator,  but  we  know  not  how  to  ac- 
count for  it.  The  fact  is  certain,  but  the  process  of  nature  by 
which  it  is  brought  about  is  concealed  ;  at  least,  it  has  not  yet  been 
discovered.  Now,  there  may  be,  in  the  constitution  of  man,  a 
principle  which  accommodates  itself  to  different  climates,  for  pur- 
poses equally  important.  Indeed  it  is  a  well  known  fact,  that  black 
people  can  endure  a  tropical  sun  much  better  than  white  men. 

The  analogy  derived  from  other  animals  and  vegetables  also 
forbids  the  multiplication  of  the  human  species.  The  changes 
produced  in  the  different  species  of  animals,  which  can  live  in 
climates  widely  different,  are  as  great,  and  in  some  much  greater, 
than  in  the  human  species.  Take,  for  an  example,  the  canine 
species.  How  great  the  difference  between  the  large  mastiff  and 
the  diminutive  lap-dog  !  These  varieties  in  animals  of  the  same 
species,  extend  not  only  to  their  size,  colour,  and  shape,  but  in  a 
very  remarkable  degree  to  their  instincts. 

Seeing,  then,  that  this  is  the  common  law  of  animal  nature,  why 
should  we  expect  that  the  physical  nature  of  man  should  be  exempt 
from  changes,  induced  by  a  diversity  of  climate  ?  And  when  we 
observe  that  the  varieties  of  the  human  race  have  a  manifest  re- 


PHENOMENA    OF    THE    NATURAL   WORLD.  11 

lation  to  the  climate  of  the  respective  nations,  the  conclusion,  upon 
all  just  principles  of  natural  science,  must  be  that  the  human  spe- 
cies is  one. 

In  all  cases  where  there  is  a  difference  of  species,  there  is  a  marked 
difference  in  the  internal  structure  of  the  body ;  but  among  the 
different  tribes  of  men,  no  such  diversity  has  been  observed  as  can 
be  the  foundation  of  a  diversity  of  species.  The  most  exact  ana- 
tomical dissections  have  discovered  no  permanent  parts  or  contriv- 
ances, in  one  nation,  which  are  not  found  also  in  all  others.  They 
all  have  the  same  bones,  the  same  joints,  the  same  system  of 
nerves,  the  same  number,  use  and  position  of  muscles,  the  same 
blood-vessels,  glands,  and  digestive  organs.  Not  only  is  the  exter- 
nal appearance  of  the  parts  the  same,  but  the  interior  texture  and 
constituent  particles  composing  the  respective  parts  of  the  human 
body,  are  the  same  in  the  white  man,  as  in  the  black,  the  olive,  the 
red,  or  the  yellow. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe,  that  all  men  have  the  same  ex- 
ternal senses  and  the  same  bodily  appetites,  the  same  instincts,  the 
same  susceptibility  of  forming  habits,  and  the  same  natural  passions 
and  desires.  Those  things  in  the  constitution  of  man  which  have  no 
resemblance  in  other  species  of  animals,  are  found  in  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth.  The  risible  faculty  and  the  faculty  of  weeping,  and 
especially  the  possession  of  articulate  speech,  all  serve  to  prove  the 
identity  of  the  human  species.  And  if  from  the  body  and  its  func- 
tions we  ascend  to  the  mind,  here  we  find  the  same  original  faculties, 
in  all  the  varieties  of  the  human  race.  We  observe  in  all,  not  only 
perception,  consciousness,  and  memory,  of  which  the  inferior  ani- 
mals seem  to  partake,  but  the  power  of  reasoning ;  the  faculty  of 
imagination  ;  the  power  of  association  and  abstraction  ;  and  what 
is  more  decisive  still,  the  moral  sense,  of  which  there  is  no  vestige 
in  the  brutes ;  and  the  faculty  of  taste ;  for  all  men  perceive  a  dif- 
ference between  right  and  wrong,  and  feel  moral  obligation ;  and 
all  men  have  some  sense  of  beauty  and  deformity.  Moreover,  all 
men  are  capable  of  improvement,  and  those  nations  which  are  now 
the  most  learned  and  refined,  were  once  among  the  most  barba- 
rous of  the  human  race. 

This  perfect  similarity  in  mind  and  body  is  sufficient  to  lead  all 
impartial  men  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  human  race  are  all  de- 
scended from  one  pair,  and  that  the  varieties  are  accidental ; — the 
effect  of  a  variety  of  causes,  all  of  which  we  are  unable  to  explore. 

Some  philosophers  have,  however,  thought  themselves  justified 
in  considering  men  of  different  species,  not  so  much  from  the  variety 
in  their  complexion  and  external  appearance,  as  from  the  different 
degrees  of  flatness  or  rotundity  in  the  skulls  of  different  nations. 
On  this  ground,  the  learned  Blumenbach  has  reduced  the  whole  hu- 
man race  to  five  classes  or  species.  But  in  the  first  place,  the  exami- 
nation of  human  skulls  has  not  been  sufficiently  extensive  to  furnish 
correct  data  for  such  a  classification ;  and  in  the  next  place,  if  the 
diflerence  exists,  it  affords  no  philosophical  reason  for  supposing  an 


12  THE    BIBLE    A   KEY    TO    THE 

original  diversity  of  species.  The  causes  which  have  operated 
other  changes,  may  as  easily  have  produced  a  difference  in  the 
mere  form  of  a  skull :  and  those  who  give  credit  to  the  discoveries 
of  the  craniologists,  will  find  no  difficulty  in  accounting  for  any 
varieties  which  are  found  in  the  skulls  of  men  of  different  tribes. 

Some  time  since,  a  radical  difference  of  intellect  was  insisted 
on,  as  a  criterion  to  determine  a  difference  of  species :  but  since 
our  acquaintance  with  the  most  degraded  and  stupid  of  the  human 
race  has  become  more  accurate ;  and  especially,  since  we  have 
witnessed  the  improvements  of  which  these  are  capable,  and  the 
rapid  advancement  of  some  of  them  in  knowledge  and  civilization, 
the  whole  ground  of  this  opinion  is  taken  away. 

There  is  another  criterion  of  the  identity  of  species,  which  by 
some  naturaUsts  has  been  considered  decisive.  It  has  been  found, 
that  although  animals  of  different  species  may  be  made  to  propa- 
gate a  mongrel  breed,  their  offspring  are  for  the  most  part  barren, 
or  are  seldom  known  to  propagate.  But  the  various  classes  of 
men  mingle  as  freely  and  propagate  the  species  with  as  much 
facility  as  people  of  the  same  tribe.  Of  late,  however,  some 
doubt  has  been  expressed  respecting  the  correctness  of  the  fact 
first  stated,  on  which  the  whole  argument  rests.  It  is  alleged  that 
sufficient  experiments  have  not  been  made  on  the  subject  of  the 
natural  want  of  fertility  in  mules  and  other  hybrids  ;  and  that,  as  far 
as  experience  goes,  they  are  found  to  be  fruitful  in  as  many  cases  as 
they  are  barren.  Leaving,  therefore,  the  degree  of  barrenness  in 
such  animals  in  doubt,  it  is  clear  that  no  new  species,  capable  of 
continuing  itself  by  propagation,  has  been  formed  by  the  union  of 
animals  of  different  species,  and  that  there  exists  a  natural  obstruc- 
tion, which  does  not  exist  in  the  case  of  men  of  the  different 
classes. 

But  why  might  not  a  number  of  pairs  of  the  same  species,  or 
exactly  similar  in  parts  and  powers,  have  been  produced  as  well 
as  one?  To  which  we  answer,  that  although  the  thing  is  possible, 
yet  sound  philosophy  never  resorts  to  such  a  supposition.  Natu- 
ralists always  go  on  the  principle  that  more  causes  of  the  phenomena 
of  nature  than  are  sufficient,  are  not  to  be  admitted ;  and  where 
every  effect  can  as  well  be  accounted  for  by  supposing  one  origi- 
nal pair  as  by  many,  the  hypothesis  of  more  than  one  ought,  on 
general  principles,  to  be  rejected. 

Having  seen  that  reason  itself  leads  us  to  believe  that  all  the  va- 
rious nations  of  men  are  derived  from  one  stock,  and  form  but  one 
species,  it  cannot  but  add  strong  confirmation  to  our  belief,  that 
the  sacred  Scriptures  clearly  inform  us,  that  when  God  created 
man  upon  the  earth,  he  created  them  mnle  and  female ; — one  man 
and  one  woman — from  whom  proceeded  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth. 

The  idea  which  some  have  entertained,  that  there  were  men  be- 
fore Adam,  is  destitute  of  all  shadow  of  proof.  The  apostle  Paul, 
in  his  discourse  before  the  Senate  of  Areopagus,  explicitly  declares, 


PHENOMENA    OF    THE    NATURAL    WORLD.  13 

what  reason  and  revelation  unite  in  teaching  to  be  the  truth.  "  And 
hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men,  for  to  dwell  on  all  the 
face  of  the  earth."  One  word  from  the  inspiration  of  God  goes 
further  to  establish  our  minds  in  the  belief  of  the  truth,  than 
volumes  of  arguments  depending  merely  on  the  fallible  reason  of 
rtian. 

The  Bible  teaches  us  that  every  man  of  every  tribe  and  of  every 
colour,  whether  his  skull  be  flat  or  prominent,  is  our  brother,  and 
has  a  claim  upon  us  for  all  the  kindness  and  beneficence  which  it  is 
in  our  power  to  show  him.  The  same  God  is  the  Father  of  us  all ; 
and  the  same  man  is  our  common  earthly  father ;  and  w^e  are 
all  rapidly  tending  to  the  same  judgment  and  to  the  same  eter- 
nity. 

But  if  any  should,  after  all,  be  of  opinion  that  the  diversity 
among  men  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  natural  causes,  yet  it  does 
not  follow  that  the  Mosaic  history  is  false,  or  that  there  are  several 
species  of  men  entirely  distinct  from  each  other.  At  some  period 
of  the  history  of  man,  for  some  special  reason,  the  Governor  of  the 
universe  may  have  given  a  distinctive  colour  to  one  or  more  fami- 
lies of  the  earth.  And  some  believers  in  the  Bible  are  so  fully  im- 
pressed with  this  idea,  that  they  have  undertaken  to  afhrm  that 
we  have  an  intimation  of  this  very  thing  in  the  sacred  history. 
While  some,  however,  would  refer  the  black  colour  of  the  skin  to 
the  mark  set  upon  Cain  (which  is  irreconcilable  with  the  history 
of  the  deluge),  others,  with  more  probability,  refer  it  to  the  curse 
upon  Canaan,  the  son  of  Ham.  As  his  posterity  were  doomed  to 
be  the  servants  of  servants,  it  is  thought  that  some  peculiar  mark 
was  set  upon  them,  which,  it  is  presumed,  was  the  dark  colour  of 
the  skin  and  the  crisped  and  woolly  hair.  And  in  confirmation  of 
this  opinion,  they  allege,  that  the  black  people  are  the  descendants 
of  Ham,  and  that  they  are  the  slaves  of  all  the  world,  until  this 
day.* 

While  we  are  willing  to  admit,  that  for  reasons  unknown  to  us, 
God  might  have  miraculously  changed  the  complexion  and  fea- 
tures of  a  part  of  the  human  race  ;  we  must  think  that  the  notion 
that  the  black  colour  was  inflicted  as  a  disgrace  and  a  curse  is  a 
mere  prejudice.  Why  should  not  the  white  colour  be  considered 
as  a  mark  of  God's  displeasure?  for  no  negro  from  the  burning 
sands  of  Africa  can  appear  more  shocking  to  the  inhabitants  of 
northern  regions,  than  the  white  man  does  to  the  people  of  the  inte- 
rior of  that  continent. 

It  seems,  moreover,  to  be  a  prejudice  without  foundation,  that 
the  colour  of  the  whites  was  that  of  the  first  man.  Much  the 
larger  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  are  of  a  complexion 
nearly  midway  between  the  two  extremes.  Is  it  not,  therefore, 
much  more  probable  that  our  first  parents  were  red  men,  or  of  an 
olive  or  copper  colour?  This  opinion  derives  some  support 
from  the  name  of  the  first  man,  for  the  radical  signification  of 


14  THE    BIBLE    A    KEY    TO    THE    PHENOMENA,    &C. 

Adam  is  red ;  and  if  this  be  assumed  as  a  fact,  then  it  will  be  much 
easier  to  account  for  the  various  complexions  of  men  from  natural 
causes,  than  if  we  suppose  that  either  white  or  black  was  the 
original  complexion. 

But  from  what  has  been  said  it  will  be  seen  that  no  valid  argu- 
ment against  the  truth  of  the  Bible  can  be  derived  from  the  variety 
in  the  human  species ;  whether  that  variety  can  be  accounted  for 
by  natural  causes  or  not 


ESSAY    II 


GOD  THE  END  OF  ALL  THINGS. 


PUBLISHED    IN    1832. 


It  is  natural  to  inquire,  whtle  surveying  tlie  extended  works  of 
God,  What  is  the  ultimate  end  of  this  great  and  complicated  system  ? 
Some  parts  of  it  we  can  easily  see  were  formed  for  others ;  objects 
that  are  small  and  insignificant,  for  those  that  are  greater  and 
more  important ;  and,  again,  these  for  others  greater  and  more 
important  still.  The  pebble  and  the  drop  w^re  made  to  constitute 
the  mountain  and  the  river ;  and  the  mountains  and  the  rivers  to 
adorn  and  embellish  the  face  of  nature,  and  in  a  thousand  ways 
to  minister  to  the  wants  of  those  who  dwell  on  the  earth.  The 
solid  earth,  with  all  its  immense  quantities  of  matter,  its  diversified 
surface,  its  fertile  soil,  its  rapid  motions,  its  elastic  atmosphere,  was 
evidently  intended  to  be  the  habitable  abode  of  men.  The  extended 
ocean,  with  all  its  mighty  expanse  and  unmeasured  depth  of  waters, 
while  it  is  the  grand  reservoir  of  nature  and  the  source  of  evapora- 
tion, perpetually  enriching  the  earth  with  fertility  and  verdure, 
everywhere  distributes  its  -watery  treasures  for  the  sustenance  and 
benefit  of  the  numerous  tribes  of  animated  and  intelligent  existence. 
If  we  extend  our  views  to  the  solar  system,  or  from  the  solar  system 
to  the  starry  heavens,  in  these  trackless  regions  we  behold  an 
assemblage  of  resplendent  orbs,  spacious  perhaps  as  the  sun  of  our 
own  system,  and  all  subserving  the  interests  of  unnumbered  worlds, 
not  improbably  invested,  like  our  own,  with  intelligence  and  immor- 
tality. Matter,  in  all  its  variety  and  magnificence,  we  see,  is  made 
for  mind,  and  one  portion  of  this  great  and  complicated  system  for 
another. 

What,  then,  is  the  ultimate  end  of  ail  things  ?  The  lights  of 
unaided  reason  are  far  from  fitting  us  to  solve  this  high  problem ; 
and  yet,  so  far  as  we  are  enabled  to  follow  them,  they  conduct  us 
to  the  same  conclusion  to  which  we  are  conducted  by  a  super- 
natural revelation,  when  it  so  happily  and  explicitly  instructs  us, 
that  "  The  Lord  hath  made  all  things  for  himself.'^ 

When  we  say  that  God  acts  for  the  purpose  of  displaying  abroad 


16  GOD  THE  END  OF  ALL  THINGS. 

the  perfections  of  his  nature  before  the  intelligent  creation — when 
we  say  that  God  made  all  things  for  himself,  we  mean,  that  his 
supreme  end  "  is  his  own  glory,  or  the  most  perfect  gratification 
of  his  infinitely  benevolent  mind."  The  word  glory ^  when  appfied 
to  God,  sometimes  denotes  the  inherent  and  full  perfection  of  the 
divine  nature,  and  sometimes  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  nature 
in  creation,  providence,  and  grace.  There  is  a  difference  between 
the  intrinsic  and  the  manifested  excellence  of  the  Godhead.  By 
his  intrinsic  excellence,  is  meant  his  essential  perfections ;  by  his 
manifested  excellence  is  meant  his  essential  perfections,  exhibited 
to  himself  and  the  created  universe.  There  is  a  richness,  a  fulness 
of  perfection  which  constitutes  his  essential  glory  ;  and  there  is  a 
diffusion,  a  resplendency  in  his  perfections  which,  if  I  may  so  speak, 
reflects  the  Deity  to  himself  and  the  universe  ;  which  casts  its 
light  through  all  worlds,  and  constitutes  his  manifested  glory.  The 
chief  excellence  of  God  consists  in  his  goodness.  Infinite  amiableness 
and  beauty  are  treasured  up  in  his  perfections,  because  the  basis  of 
them  is  the  most  pure,  permanent,  universal,  and  perfect  goodness. 

This  is  the  glory  of  his  nature.  But  the  intrinsic,  or  essential 
goodness  of  God  does  not  admit  of  increase  or  diminution.  God 
cannot  possess  more  essential  goodness  than  he  does  possess  ;  and, 
therefore,  cannot  be  made  essentially  more  glorious  than  he  is. 
When,  therefore,  we  speak  of  God's  being  glorified,  or  of  the  ad- 
vancement and  promotion  of  his  glory,  we  speak  of  the  augmenta- 
tion of  his  manifested  excellence — of  the  expression,  or  gratification 
of  his  infinite  goodness,  in  some  of  its  forms  and  modifications.  It 
is  not  incompatible  with  his  immutability,  that  the  exhibition  he 
makes  of  his  nature  should  be  capable  of  continual  growth  and 
enlargement,  and  that  his  manifested  excellence  should  receive 
fresh  accessions,  and  be  continually  growing  more  extended  and 
more  refulgent.  For  all  that  we  know,  the  manifested  glory  of 
God  is  susceptible  of  augmentation  that  is  perpetually  progressive. 
In  the  same  proportion  in  which  the  scene  opens,  will  the  true 
character  of  God  be  unfolded,  and  his  perfect  goodness  made 
known.  And  as  the  drama  draws  to  a  close,  and  the  catastrophe 
of  the  mighty  plot  begins  to  be  developed,  at  every  step  of  this  pro- 
gressive disclosure  will  the  heart  of  God  be  acted  out,  the  name  of 
God  magnified,  the  glory  of  God  displayed  abroad,  and  the  divine 
goodness  infinitely  and  for  ever  exalted  and  gratified.  This  is 
what  we  mean  when  we  say,  that  the  glory  of  God  is  the  ultimate 
end  of  all  his  conduct,  and  that  he  made  all  things  for  himself.  It 
was  that  he  might  manifest  the  perfections  of  his  nature,  and  thus 
exalt  and  gratify  his  infinite  goodness. 

This  is  God's  ultimate  end.  This  is  the  end  to  which  all  other 
ends  are  subordinate  and  subservient.  Jehovah,  the  king  of  Israel, 
is  "  the  first  and  the  last ;"  he  is  "Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning 
and  the  ending  ;"  the  first  cause  and  the  last,  or  supreme  end  of  all 
things.  "Of  him,  and  to  him,  and  through  him,  are  all  things." 
"  All  things  that  are  in  heaven  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and 


GOD  THE  END  OF  ALL  THINGS.  17 

invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  principalities,  and 
powers,  all  were  created  by  him  and  for  him.  God  himself  often 
declares  in  his  word,  that  he  will  do,  or  refrain  from  doing,  "  for 
his  own  sake," — for  "  his  name's  sake," — "  for  his  praise," — "  for 
his  glory," — and,  that  "  in  all  things  he  may  be  glorified."  What 
means  the  sublime  declaration  in  the  Apocalypse  ?  "  And  the  four 
beasts  rest  not  day  nor  night,  saying,  holy,  holy,  holy,  Lord  God 
Almighty,  which  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  come.  And  when  those 
beasts  give  glory,  and  honour,  and  thanks  to  him  that  sat  on  the 
throne,  who  liveth  for  ever  and  ever,  the  four  and  twenty  elders 
fall  down  before  him  that  sat  on  the  throne,  and  worship  him  that 
liveth  for  ever  and  ever,  and  cast  their  crowns  before  the  throne, 
saying,  thou  art  worthy,  O  Lord,  to  receive  glory,  and  honour,  and 
power,  for  thou  hast  created  all  things^  and  for  thy  pleasure  they 
are  and  were  created  /" 

Whom  could  God  ultimately  regard,  in  the  creation  of  all  things, 
except  himself?  Before  the  creation  there  was  none  otlier  in  ex- 
istence but  God.  The  motives  to  create  must,  of  necessity,  be 
within  himself  Is  it  said,  that  future  existence  itself  may  be  an  end 
in  proposing  and  causing  it  to  exist  ?  Is  it  said,  that  the  excellence 
of  his  work  was  an  inducement  to  create  ? 

But  for  what  purpose  did  God  propose  happiness  ?  Did  he  act 
without  a  motive  ?  Or  was  it  to  express  and  gratify  his  own  per- 
fect goodness  ?  Was  it  his  love  of  happiness,  his  delight  in  happi- 
ness, that  induced  the  purpose  and  the  wish  l 

The  divine  glory  deserves  the  most  regard.  Not  only  must  the 
infinite  and  eternal  Creator  have  had  some  end  in  view  in  the  crea- 
tion, but  one  that  justifies  the  expressions  of  his  omnipotence,  and 
that  is  worthy  of  the  greatest  and  best  Being  in  the  universe.  We 
can  conceive  of  many  ends  that  might  have  presented  themselves 
to  his  mind,  but  we  can  conceive  of  no  supreme  end  short  of  him- 
self, without  derogating  from  his  perfect  excellence.  Universal 
creation  is  but  a  pomt  compared  with  God.  Language,  and  figures, 
and  comparisons,  are  lost  in  the  contemplation  of  his  being  and 
nature.  The  material  and  intellectual  universe  is  but  a  faint  adum- 
bration of  what  God  himself  is,  and  presents  a  mere  shadow,  an 
emblem  of  his  infinite  perfections.  All  nations,  all  worlds,  are  but 
a  "  drop  of  the  bucket,"  compared  with  him,  and  no  more  than  the 
small  vapour  to  the  immense  ocean.  Immeasurable  glories  and 
blessedness  belong  to  Him  who  fills  immensity.  The  glory  of  the 
infinite  God,  therefore,  deserves  the  highest  regard.  And  with 
reverence  be  it  spoken,  it  became  him  to  make  this  his  design,  as 
really  it  becomes  him  to  give  the  preference  to  an  archangel 
above  an  insect. 

The  use  which  God  actually  makes  of  his  creation,  shows  what 
end  it  was  intended  to  answer.  It  subserves  the  end  for  which  it 
was  originally  intended.  And  what  do  the  Scriptures  and  facts 
declare  this  to  be  ?  Obviously,  not  the  happiness  of  all  God's 
creatures ;  for  they  are  not  all  happy.     Human  misery  stares  us 

2 


18  GOD  THE  END  OP  ALL  THINGS. 

in  the  face  wherever  we  turn  our  eyes.  In  eternity  .there  are,  and 
will  be  greater  and  deeper  miseries  than  are  found  in  time.  So  ^ 
that  if  the  hnppiness  of  all  God's  creatures  be  the  ultimate  end  of 
creation,  most  certainly  the  divine  purpose  is  defeated.  But  facts 
and  the  Bible  unite  in  declaring  that  the  Use  God  makes  of  his 
universe  is  the  promotion  and  advancement  of  his  own  glory. 
When  we  survey  the  works  of  creation,  to  what  do  we  see  them 
so  really  and  so  much  subservient,  as  the  glory  of  the  Creator  ? 
"  All  thy  works  praise  theeJ*  "  Holy,  holy,  holy  is  the  Lord  of 
hosts,  the  whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory."  If  we  survey  the  works 
of  Providence,  what  do  they  illustrate  so  clearly,  as  the  suprema- 
cy, wisdom,  goodness,  power,  and  presence  of  the  Almighty  and 
efficient  Ruler  ?  What  grand  and  deep  impression  do  they  pro- 
duce on  the  mind,  if  not  this,  that  they  are  lull  of  God  ? — that  by 
them  his  name  is  "  declared  throughout  all  the  earth" — and  that 
through  them  men  "  may  know  that  he  is  the  Lord  ?"  It  will  not 
be  doubted  that  the  glory  of  God  is  the  great  end  of  the  work  of 
redemption.  Angels,  when  they  announced  it,  sang  "  Glory  to  God 
in  the  highest !"  The  Redeemer,  when  he  achieved  it,  prayed, 
"  Father,  glorify  thy  name  !"  All  its  promises  are  "  yea  and  amen 
to  the  glory  of  God,  by  Jesus  Christ."  The  graces,  and  hopes,  and 
joys  it  imparts  to  the  saints,  are  to  "  make  known  the  riches  of  his 
glory."  And  the  final  and  triumphant  song  it  inspires  in  the 
heavenly  world,  is  "unto  him  be  glory  !"  Not  only  is  the  glory  of 
God  the  ultimate  end  of  all  his  goodness  and  mercy  to  the  saints, 
but  of  all  his  justice  and  indignation  to  the  ungodly.  *'  The  wrath 
of  man  shall  praise  the  Lord."  Allelujas  to  God  and  the  Lamb 
shall  ascend,  when  the  smoke  of  the  torments  of  the  damned  go  up 
for  ever  and  ever.  And  the  close  of  this  terrestrial  scene  shall  de- 
clare and  confirm  the  truth  we  are  enforcing  with  a  deep  and 
memorable  emphasis.  A  voice  from  heaven  shall  then  be  heard, 
saying,  "  It  is  done  ;  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega  !"  When  the  great 
design  shall  be  consummated,  and  creation,  providence,  and  re- 
demption shall  have  been  brought  to  their  final  issue,  and  the 
Judge  shall  have  pronounced  the  final  sentence,  then  shall  this 
redeeming  God  and  King  "  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even 
the  Father,  and  God  shall  be  all  in  all  : "  and  this  surrender 
shall  eternally  proclaim  to  the  universe,  that  "  God  made  all  things 
for  himself"  God  shall  be  all  in  all.  God  shall  be  infinitely  and 
for  ever  glorified. 

But  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  occupy  a  few  pages  in  vindicating 

THE  CONDUCT  OF  GoD  IN  THUS  MAKING  HIMSELF  HIS  LAST  END.     There 

is  nothing  which  the  Scriptures  represent  as  more  essential  to  en- 
larged and  consistent  views  of  truth,  as  well  as  to  the  great  in- 
terests of  vital  piety,  than  some  just  conceptions  of  this  part  of  our 
subject.  There  is  nothing  of  which  God  himself  is  so  jealous, 
nothing  he  regards  so  deeply  as  his  own  glory.  This  he  is  im- 
mutably resolved  to  secure  and  advance,  and  by  all  means,  and  at 
every  step  of  its  development,  to  make  men  see.     He  "  will  not 


GOD  THE  END  OF  ALL  THINGS.  19 

give  his  glory  to  another."  His  glory  is,  with  him,  a  consideration 
of  paramount  influence,  in  every  condition  and  circumstance,  and 
in  all  worlds.  It  is  second  to  nothing  which  the  Infinite  Mind  itself 
has  ever  conceived.  Holy  beings  in  heaven  and  on  earth  have  no 
larger  wish,  no  greater  desire,  than  to  behold  greater  and  brighter 
exhibitions  of  the  divine  excellence. 

It  is  of  the  highest  importance  in  itself,  that  God  should  appear 
in  the  perfect  exercise  and  exhibition  of  his  divine  excellence.     The 
importance  of  this  exhibition  depends  on  the  intrinsic  and  manifold 
perfections  of  the  divine  nature.     If  there  were  no  excellence  in 
the  Deity,  we  should  be  far  from  considering  it  desirable  that  his 
true  character  should  appear  ;  much  less  should  we  desire  that  the 
full  and  complete  exhibition  and  gratification  of  it  should  be  the 
ultimate  end  of  all  that  he  does.     In  itself  considered,  no  matter 
how  long,  or  how  impenetrably,  intrinsic  turpitude  of  character  lies 
concealed  ;  it  is  deformed  and  disgusting  to  look  at  ;  it  makes  no 
one  the  better  or  happier  for  being  familiar  with  it ;  but  the  more 
fully,  the  more  impressively  intrinsic  excellence  is  disclosed,  the 
deeper  is  the  conviction  of  its  reality  and  loveliness,  and  the  more 
sublime  and  beautiful  the  survey  and  inspection  of  its  glories.   Now, 
it  is  because  God  is  infinitely  great  and  good,  that  it  is  desirable  to 
"  see  him  as  he  is."     That  immensity  and  majesty,  that  power  and 
wisdom,  that  supremacy  and  immutability,  that  pure,  perfect,  and 
universal  goodness,  which  diffuse  their  energy  into  all  the  divine 
plans,  and  spread  such  beauty  and  glory  over  all  the  divine  works 
and  conduct,  are  in  him  excellences  of  the  highest  kind,  and  im- 
measurable in  degree.     We  do  not  appreciate  the  exhibition  of  the 
divine    excellence,    because    we  have   such  low  and  grovelling 
thoughts  of  God.     Were  this  immensely  great  and  infinitely  glo- 
rious Being  always  viewed  as  he  is,  did  we  see  him  to  be  "  the  first 
fair  and  the  first  good,"  were  we  always  possessed  of  just  and  com- 
prehensive conceptions  of  his  glory,  we  should  entertain  no  doubt, 
that  the  reflection  of  this  excellence,  the  progressive  difllision  of 
these  concentrated  rays,  is  the  highest  and  best  end  which  the 
Supreme   Intelligence  could  propose  to  himself  in  all  his  works. 
The  principle  on  which  we  affirm  this,  is  inwoven  with  all  our 
common  sense  and  moral  calculations.     Every  man  regrets,  and 
deems  it  an  unhappiness,  when  a  measure  of  mere  human  excel- 
lence  is  hid  from  the  public   eye.     When  virtue  languishes  in 
solitude,  when  genius  withers  in  retirement,  when  the  heavy  hand 
of  external  discouragement  or  internal  depression  bears  down  the 
rising  efforts  of  intellectual  or  moral  greatness,  what  benevolent 
mind  does  not  reflect  upon  such  calamity  with  pain  ?     And  if  in 
proportion  to  the  degree  of  excellence  is  the  importance  that  it 
should  be  unfolded,  beyond  conception   important  is  it  that  the 
matchless,  manifold,  infinite,  and  eternal  excellence  of  the  Diety 
should  appear,  and  be  displayed  abroad  in  all  its  glory.     If  the 
king,  eternal,  immortal,  and  invisible,  possesses,  not  the  resem- 
blance and  image,  but  "  the  living  features"  of  perfection,  who 


20  GOD  THE  END  OF  ALL  THINGS. 

feels  it  not  to  be  important  that  the  light  of  his  fair  countenance 
should  be  lifted  upon  the  universe  he  has  made,  and  that  every 
subject  of  his  empire  should  be  constrained  to  see,  that  "  none  in 
heaven  can  be  compared  unto  the  Lord,  and  none  among  the  sons 
of  the  mighty  can  be  likened  unto  the  Lord  ?"  Not  only  is  there 
in  this  disclosure  ineffable  loveliness  and  beauty,  but  there  is  equity 
both  to  himself  and  his  creatures.  If  he  is  a  holy  God,  and  there 
is  beauty  in  his  holiness,  then  ought  it  to  appear  that  he  is  holy  and 
not  sinful.  If  he  is  just,  and  there  are  beauties  and  amiableness  in 
his  justice,  then  is  it  desirable  and  important  that  his  justice  should 
appear,  and  be  magnified  :  and  that  he  should  for  ever  be  acquitted 
of  the  imputation  of  cruelty,  caprice,  and  injustice.  If  he  is  wise,  and 
powerful,  and  good,  then  is  it  infinitely  desirable  that  these  perfec- 
tions of  his  nature  should  be  acted  out,  and  he  exalted  and  gratified ; 
and  that  no  order  of  beings  should  ever  call  in  question  the  wis- 
dom, eflicacy,  or  benevolence  of  his  administrations.  If  he  is  gra- 
cious and  merciful,  then  ought  all  men  to  see  "  what  is  the  fellow- 
ship of  the  mystery  which,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  hath 
been  hid  in  God,  who  created  all  things  by  Jesus  Christ,  to  the 
intent  that  now  unto  principalities  and  powers  in  heavenly  places, 
might  be  known  through  the  Church,  his  manifold  glory."  If  he  is 
supreme,  then  is  it  desirable  that  his  supremacy  should  appear,  and 
that  all  should  know,  that  he  "  does  his  pleasure  in  the  armies  of 
heaven  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth."  And  if  he  is  in 
every  view  a  being  of  faultless,  unequalled  perfection,  and  that 
every  intellectual  and  moral  excellence  adorns  his  nature,  and  are 
the  habitation  and  glory  of  his  throne,  then  is  it  of  the  highest  im- 
portance that  his  unblemished  glory  should  shine  forth,  and  that 
nothing  mar  its  unrivalled  beauty.  There  was  an  emphasis  in  the 
inquiry  of  Moses,  that  sinks  into  the  soul  of  every  godly  man  and 
every  bending  seraph,  "  What  will  become  of  thy  great  name  ?" 
We  know  that  among  fallen  spirits,  and  in  this  world  of  ours  that 
lieth  in  wickedness,  the  divine  character  has  been  subjected  to  the 
foulest  stains,  his  government  reproached,  and  his  designs  defamed  ; 
and  unless  his  excellence  appear  in  cloudless  glory,  dissipating  the 
obscurity  in  which  it  has  been  enveloped  by  the  ignorance,  mis- 
conception, and  wickedness  of  creatures,  the  stain  can  never  be 
wiped  away.  God  must  be  glorified.  Every  supposed  blemish 
must  be  removed  by  the  exhibition  of  himself.  Every  murmur 
against  him  must  die  away.  "  Every  mouth  must  be  stopped." 
And  nothing  short  of  the  actual  development  of  the  divine  nature 
can  attain  this  end.  All  that  God  is,  and  all  that  he  does,  must 
"  come  to  the  light,"  that  it  may  be  approved  and  applauded  by 
ten  thousand  tongues,  and  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand  con- 
sciences, and  that  their  approbation  and  their  plaudits  may  be 
eternal. 

It  is  also  through  the  bright  exhibitions  of  his  own  glory,  that 
the  God  of  love  designs  to  secure  and  perpetuate  the  perfect  and 
progressive  holiness  of  unnumbered  multitudes  of  his  creatures. 


GOD  THE  END  OF  ALL  THINGS.  SI 

Some  of  the  creatures  of  God  were  created  holy,  and  have  main- 
tained their  primeval  integrity,  and  will  maintain  it  for  ever.  Some 
were  created  holy,  and  fell  from  their  primitive  rectitude,  and  have 
given  birth  to  a  race  of  beings,  fallen  like  themselves.  Of  these,  a 
great  multitude  are  recovered  from  their  apostasy,  and  will  continue 
steadfast  in  their  obedience  without  end.  And  it  is  obvious  to 
remark,  that  whether  true  holiness,  or  moral  rectitude,  is  found 
among  angels  or  men,  it  is  advanced  and  perpetuated  by  the  same 
nrueans.  Wherever  it  is  found,  it  consists  in  holy  love,  and  prima- 
rily, in  love  to  the  adorable  and  ever  blessed  God.  "  Love  is  the 
fulfilling  of  the  law."  "  He  that  dwelleth  in  love,  dwelleth  in  God, 
and  God  in  him."  He  that  "  loveth  not,  knoweth  not  God,  for  God 
is  love."  Now  it  accords  with  the  Scriptures,  and  all  the  experi- 
ence of  good  men  that  the  love  of  God  exists  and  is  sustained 
through  the  knowledge  of  God.  The  Divine  Spirit,  is  indeed,  the 
immediate  and  only  cause  and  author  of  this  heavenly  disposition  ; 
but  the  knowledge  of  God  is  the  great  instrument  of  it.  This  is 
the  aliment  of  all  healthful  moral  existence.  Wherever  sinful 
beings  are  made  holy,  it  is  by  becoming  acquainted  with  God. 
When  God  renews  the  hearts  of  the  sons  of  men,  and  sheds  abroad 
his  love  in  them,  they  are  illumined  from  above,  and  enabled  to 
discern  the  supreme  excellence  and  glory  of  the  divine  character. 
"  God,  who  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  shines 
in  their  hearts,  to  give  them  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  his  glory ^ 
in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ."  And  wherever  holy  beings  see  and 
learn  most  of  God  they  become  most  holy.  Holy  affections 
delight  in  nothing  but  a  holy  object,  and  the  most  holy  affections 
delight  in  nothin<j  so  much  as  the  most  holy.  The  highest  holiness 
in  creatures  can  be  found  only  where  God  is  best  known,  and  loved 
perfectly.  Upon  nothing  does  their  holiness  so  much  depend,  as 
the  knowledge  of  God.  It  is  possible  for  us  to  conceive  of  a  sinless 
being,  who  knows  nothing  except  his  obligations  to  his  fellow  crea- 
tures ;  but  it  would  be  a  rectitude  without  a  name — an  anomaly  in 
the  moral  universe — a  rectitude  that  falls  far  below  the  actual 
rectitude,  the  real  moral  elevation  of  all  holy  creatures.  We  do 
not  see  how  it  is  possible  there  should  be  any  more  conformity  to 
God,  than  there  is  knowledge  of  his  true  character.  Other  things 
being  equal,  the  reason  why  one  good  man  is  more  holy  than 
another,  is  that  he  possesses  more  clear  and  comprehensive  views 
of  God.  One  reason  why  Moses,  and  David,  and  Paul,  were  so 
much  more  holy  than  the  mass  of  good  men,  is  that  they  possessed 
such  high  and  extended  views  of  God.  It  is  necessary,  therefore, 
to  the  existence  of  holiness  in  the  world,  and  its  advancement  and 
perpetuity,  and  especially  its  strength  and  vividness,  that  there 
should  be  a  clear  development  of  the  divine  character,  and  that  the 
great  God  should  be  exalted  and  glorified.  It  is  worthy  of  God  as 
the  friend  and  patron  of  holiness,  to  select  as  the  ultimate  end  of 
all  he  does,  the  most  perfect  exhibition  of  his  own  nature.  This 
he  must  do,  to  be  loved,  admired,  and  adored  to  the  extent  and 


22  GOD  THE  END  OF  ALL  THINGS. 

degree  in  which  holy  beings  will  admire  and  adore  his  entire  excel- 
lence. It  is  when  "  with  unveiled  face,  they  behold  as  in  a  glass, 
the  glory  of  the  Lord,  that  they  are  changed  into  the  same  image, 
from  glory  to  glory,  even  as  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord."  Take 
away  from  the  bosom  of  the  holy,  on  earth  or  in  heaven,  those 
strong  affections  which  arise  from  their  perception  of  the  glory  of 
the  divine  nature,  and  you  abate  the  fervour  and  intenseness  of 
their  piety.  You  starve  their  graces,  and  well  nigh  transform  their 
character.  It  is  indispensable  to  the  highest  and  best  state  of 
religious  affection,  that  the  glory  of  God,  progressively  and  in  all 
its  full-orbed  splendour,  should  shine  upon  the  world.  He  made 
this  lower  world  to  unfold  the  greatness  and  goodness  of  his  cha- 
racter, and  because  his  greatness  and  goodness  are  and  will  be  here 
so  wonderfully  unfolded,  and  the  whole  earth  become  full  of  his 
glory ;  it  is  the  school  of  morals  and  piety,  where  the  first  and  the 
last  lesson  is  God  himself,  and  where,  by  becoming  acquainted  with 
God,  rational  and  immortal  beings  are  trained  up  for  perfect  holi- 
ness and  an  eternal  heaven. 

This  leads  us  to  remark,  that  the  propriety  of  God's  making 
himself  his  ultimate  end,  appears  more  clearly  from  the  fact,  that 
by  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  the  greatest  aggregate  of  happi- 
ness is  secured  to  intelligent  beings.  The  import  of  this  remark 
will  not,  we  think,  be  misunderstood.  God  is  the  first  cause.  All 
existence,  all  happiness,  flows  from  him ;  and  flows  only  by  the 
exhibition  of  his  own  glory.  Without  some  expression  of  the 
divine  perfections,  neither  created  happiness  nor  creatures  would 
have  had  a  being.  There  would  have  been  nothing  in  existence 
besides  God,  and  nothing  besides  himself  to  be  happy.  There  would 
have  been  no  effort  of  his  power;  no  results  of  his  wisdom  ;  no 
effects  from  his  benevolence  ;  but  his  inert  perfections  would  have 
been  buried  in  the  retirement  of  eternity,  and  have  slept  for  ever 
in  the  recesses  of  his  own  infinite  mind.  Literally,  therefore,  does 
all  created  happiness  depend  upon  the  manifested  excellence  of  the 
Deity.  Nor  is  it  less  certain  that  the  amount  of  created  good  is 
advanced  by  the  continued  and  increased  exhibition  of  the  divine 
excellence.  Had  the  natural  and  moral  perfections  of  the  Deity 
ceased  to  act,  and  to  be  illustrated  immediately  after  the  creation, 
or  immediately  after  the  deluge,  or  immediately  after  the  death  of 
Jesus  Christ,  who  does  not  see  that  the  aggregate  of  created 
happiness  would  have  suffered  a  lamented  diminution  ?  Since  no 
created  happiness  could  originally  have  existed  without  some 
manifestation  of  the  divine  nature,  so  none  would  have  continued 
to  exist.  The  exhibition  of  the  divine  glory  is  not  less  essential  to 
the  increase  and  perpetuity,  than  to  the  original  existence  of  created 
good.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  an  actual  cessation  in  the 
diversified  exhibitions  of  the  Deity.  Had  there  been  a  partial 
intermission,  suspension,  or  limitation  in  the  exhibition  of  the  divine 
excellence,  the  effect,  though  less  serious,  would  have  been  no  less 
perceptible.     In  proportion  to  the  limit  imposed  on  the  illustration. 


GOD    THE    END    OF    ALL    THINGS.  ,83 

would  have  been  the  diminution  in  created  happiness.  Had  there 
been  fewer  and  less  impressive  exhibitions  of  the  divine  power, 
there  had  been  fewer  and  less  magnificent  and  less  exalted  beings 
and  objects  created  and  upheld  and  governed  by  the  divine  hand. 
Had  there  been  fewer  and  less  impressive  exhibitions  of  the  divine 
wisdom,  there  had  been,  in  the  vast  and  complicated  system  of 
God's  operations,  an  end  less  benevolent  than  that  which  has  been 
selected,  and  means  less  admirably  adapted  to  accomplish  it.  Had 
there  been  fewer  and  less  impressive  exhibitions  of  the  divine 
mercy,  it  had  been  purchased  at  a  cheaper  rate,  bestowed  on  fewer 
sinners,  and  those  less  ill-deserving,  and  that  less  freely.  Had 
there  been  fewer  and  less  impressive  exhibitions  of  the  divine 
justice,  there  had  been  fewer  monuments  of  his  holy  displeasure 
against  sin,  and  those  less  awful  and  glorious ;  and,  consequently,  a 
diminished  confidence  in  God,  as  the  moral  governor  of  the  holy 
and  unholy.  Had  there  been  fewer  and  less  impressive  exhibitions 
of  the  divine  supremacy,  there  had  been  less  visible  superiority  and 
inferiority  among  all  God's  creatures,  and  less  diversity  of  moral 
character  and  final  allotment  throughout  the  universe.  But  if  the 
numerous  and  magnificent  objects  of  creative  power  and  directive 
superintendence — if  the  glorious  end  of  the  divine  administrations, 
together  with  the  wonderful  adaptation  of  means  to  accomplish  it 
— if  the  stupendous  sacrifice  made  for  the  redemption  of  fallen  man, 
the  multitudes  which  no  man  can  number,  and  those  the  chief  of 
sinners,  ransomed  by  grace  unutterably  rich  and  free — if  the  eternal 
monuments  of  Jehovah's  displeasure  against  his  incorrigible  enemies, 
and  the  security  of  his  government  over  a  world  of  rational  and 
accountable  agents — if  the  wide  and  permanent  diversity  of  cha- 
racter and  condition  in  the  present  world  and  the  world  to  come — 
if  these,  however  fraught  with  evil  in  some  of  their  private  relations, 
are,  on  the  whole,  a  good,  and  in  their  combination  and  contrast, 
in  their  wide  connexions  and  eternal  consequences,  subserve  the 
general  welfare,  then  the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  the  manifes- 
tation of  the  divine  glory  is  indispensable  to  the  highest  aggregate 
of  created  happiness.  And  that  they  are  a  good,  will  not  be  ques- 
tioned by  any  who  confide  in  the  absolute  perfection  of  the  Deity. 
He  cannot  be  a  perfect  being  if  the  exhibition  of  his  true  character 
results  in  anything  short  of  the  highest  good.  We  have  no  other 
idea  of  imperfection  than  that  it  is  in  its  own  nature  bad,  and  that 
its  tendency  is  on  the  whole  to  produce  evil.  But  we  do  not  thus 
charge  God  foolishly.  If  "God  only  wise"  cannot  err,  if  the  attri- 
butes of  his  nature  are  in  no  way  imperfect,  then  whatever  evils 
may  be  incidental  to  their  development,  it  cannot  be  otherwise  than 
that  in  the  final  issue  they  should  secure  the  greatest  good. 

In  perfect  accordance  with  these  remarks,  the  experience  of  good 
men  attests  the  fact,  that  the  source  and  fulness  of  created  good  is 
the  knowledge  and  enjoyment  of  God.  There  is  something  in  the 
divine  nature,  not  merely  for  the  employment  of  our  intellectual 
powers,  but  for  the  gratification  of  our  most  exalted  and  spiritual 


24  GOD  THE  END  OF  ALL  THINGS. 

affections.  Whatever  brings  God  to  the  view  of  a  holy  mind  never 
fails  to  increase  its  joy.  The  happiest  moment  of  the  Christian's 
existence  is  vsrhen  he  enjoys  the  most  enlarged  and  most  impressive 
views  of  God,  and  dwells  with  adoring  wonder  on  his  boundless 
and  unsearchable  perfections.  To  enjoy  this  felicity  was  the  desire 
of  Moses  when  he  said,  "  I  beseech  thee  show  me  thy  glory  f  this 
was  the  desire  of  Job  when  he  said,  "  Oh  that  I  knew  where  I 
might  find  him  :"  of  David  when  he  prayed,  "  Lord,  lift  thou  up  the 
light  of  thy  countenance  upon  me  ;"  and  when  he  says, "  One  thing 
have  I  desired  of  the  Lord,  that  will  I  seek  after,  that  I  may  dwell 
in  the  house  of  the  Lord  all  the  days  of  my  life,  and  behold  the 
beauty  of  the  Lord :"  and  again,  when  he  declares,  "  My  soul 
thirsteth  for  thee,  to  see  thy  power  and  thy  glory,  so  as  I  have  seen 
thee  in  the  sanctuary."  When  you  read  the  lives  of  such  men  as 
Flavel  and  Owen,  Baxter  and  Edwards,  Tennent  and  Brainerd, 
you  cannot  fail  to  discover  that  the  source  of  their  highest  bles- 
sedness, their  most  enduring  comforts,  their  most  enraptured  joys, 
was  enlarged  views  of  the  divine  character  and  glory.  Let  God 
be  brought  into  view,  and  a  holy  mind  will  be  happy  ;  let  God  be 
withdrawn,  and  it  will  be  miserable.  His  ineffable  glory  was 
once  withdrawn  from  the  holiest  created  mind  in  the  universe,  and 
the  man  Christ  Jesus  exclaimed  in  agony  inexpressible,  "  My  God, 
my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?"  Some  of  our  readers  can 
accord  with  the  spirit  of  these  remarks,  and  have  no  doubt  sensi- 
bly felt  that  nothing  could  make  them  miserable  while  the  glory 
of  the  divine  character  beamed  around  them. 

But  who,  in  this  dark  world,  is  fitted  to  appreciate  the  blessed- 
ness resulting  from  the  more  illustrious  and  transforming  manifes- 
tations of  the  divine  beauty?  Eye  hath  not  seen  them,  nor  have 
they  entered  into  the  heart  of  man.  "  It  may  not  be  easy  for  us," 
says  the  eloquent  Chalmers,  "  with  all  our  imperfection,  to  sympa- 
thize with  the  rapture,  the  ecstasy  of  holy  beings  in  their  survey 
of  the  divine  perfections ;  but  it  is  this  that  is  the  constant  and 
essential  principle  of  all  their  enjoyment,  the  never-failing  source 
of  their  delighted  admiration."  Had  God  withheld  the  manifesta- 
tions of  his  entire  excellence  from  angels,  we  do  not  say  they  would 
have  been  miserable,  but  we  do  say,  they  would  not  have  been  gra- 
tified. We  do  not  say  their  bosoms  would  not  have  heaved  with 
joy,  but  never  would  they  have  swelled  with  the  "joy  that  is  un- 
speakable and  full  of  glory,"  and  never  would  they  have  known 
that  "  exceeding  and  eternal  weight  of  glory"  which  now  they 
know.  Had  it  pleased  the  Eternal  to  shed  on  them  only  a  few 
broken  and  refracted  rays  of  his  divinity,  their  joys  might  indeed 
have  beamed  with  bright  effulgence,  but  they  would  have  enkindled 
only  the  glimmerings  of  that  flame,  which  now  glows  in  their 
bosoms  with  unutterable  fervour,  and  which  emanates  from  the 
fulness  of  the  Creator's  glory.  It  is  a  thought  very  dear  to  us, 
that  the  glory  of  God  and  the  good  of  the  universe  cannot  be  se- 
parated.    When  the  glorious  Being,  whose  name  is  love,  acts  for 


GOD    THE    END    OF    ALL    THINGS. 


ik 


his  own  glory  he  acts  for  the  good  of  his  creatures.  His  goodness 
cannot  be  gratified  without  promoting  the  highest  good  of  the  uni- 
verse. Though  he  cannot  make  all  his  creatures  happy  consistently 
with  the  highest  good,  his  own  glory  requires  him  to  make  them  as 
happy  as  he  can  consistently  make  them.  The  only  source  of 
blessedness,  therefore,  that  is  commensurate  with  the  ever-varying 
desires  and  utmost  grasp  of  the  immortal  mind  is  found  in  God, 
and  found  in  him  from  the  exhibition  of  his  excellent  glory.  Here 
are  rich  and  endless  disclosures ;  here  is  never-ceasing  variety  ; 
here  are  glories  which  may  be  contemplated  with  new  and  ever- 
fresh  delight,  the  longer  and  the  brighter  they  are  spread  before 
the  eye. 

There  is  another  thought  which  we  deem  of  some  consequence 
in  this  illustration.  We  may  not  think  the  Infinite  One  "  altogether 
such  an  one  as  ourselves,"  nor  would  we  speak  of  him  with  uncir- 
cumcised  lips.  "  Who,  by  searching,  can  find  out  God  ?  Who  can 
find  out  the  Almighty  to  perfection  r'  The  thought  we  wish  to  be 
considered  is  this :  The  perfect  exhibition  of  the  divine  glory  is  es- 
sential to  the  happiness  of  God  himself.  The  Scriptures  represent 
God  as  perfectly  happy.  They  speak  of  him,  as  "  God  over  all, 
blessed  for  ever,"  and  as  the  "  blessed  and  only  Potentate."  But  in 
what  does  the  blessedness  of  God  consist  ?  Does  it  not  result  from 
the  pure  and  perfect  benevolence  of  his  character,  which  he  him- 
self sees  and  appreciates,  and  which  gives  infinite  pleasure  to  his 
own  holy  mind  ?  Would  God  be  happy,  and  could  he  contemplate 
his  nature  with  self-approbation  and  complacency,  if  he  possessed 
a  selfish  and  malevolent  spirit  ?  Does  not  his  blessedness  also  re- 
sult from  the  expression  of  his  perfect  benevolence  in  the  works  of 
creation,  providence,  and  grace,  by  which  he  diflTuses  so  much  hap- 
piness among  his  creatures  ?  Is  it  not  thus  that  his  benevolence  is 
gratified,  and  that  he  makes  himself  happy  ?  And  does  not  his 
blessedness  also  result  from  beholding  the  consequences  and  effects 
of  his  communicative  goodness,  wherever  they  are  diffused  and 
enjoyed  ?  With  infinite  delight  does  he  behold  all  the  fruits  of  his 
pure  and  perfect  goodness.  "  The  Lord  shall  rejoice  in  his  works." 
He  "  rejoices  over  them  with  joy ;"  he  "joys  over  them  with  sing- 
ing;" he  "rests  in  his  love."  Is  it  too  much  to  say,  that  although 
God  is  a  pure  and  perfect  Spirit,  eternal,  unchangeable,  infinite  in 
his  being,  power,  wisdom,  holiness,  justice,  goodness,  and  truth, 
that  his  blessedness  results  from  the  same  sources  which  commu- 
nicate happiness  to  the  minds  of  all  holy  creatures,  and  diflfers  from 
theirs — this  is  indeed  a  mighty  diflference — only  as  it  is  an  independ- 
ent blessedness  ;  as  it  is  without  alloy,  without  interruption,  with- 
out limits,  and  without  end  ;  or  in  other  words,  only  as  he  diflfers 
from  them.  Created  minds  are  happy  in  the  perfect  gratification 
of  all  their  holy  desires ;  and  God  is  happy  in  the  perfect  grati- 
fication of  all  his  desires.  And  since  he  has  no  desires  that  are 
unholy,  all  are  perfectly  gratified  ;  and  in  this  consists  his  perfect 
and  immutable  blessedness. 


26 


GOD    THE    END    OF    ALL    THINGS. 


It  is  sometimes  objected  to  this  view  of  the  divine  blessedness, 
that  God  could  not  have  been  eternally  happy.  But  the  objection 
is  more  specious  than  valid.  We  have  no  doubt  God  was  origi- 
nally and  eternally  happy,  and  that  his  happiness  always  has  been 
unmixed  and  uninterrupted.  But  why  is  he  thus  blessed  ?  Most 
certainly,  not  independently  of  himself;  not  independently  of  his 
own  desires,  and  of  his  purposes  to  gratify  them.  He  was  from 
eternity  happy  in  the  view  of  himselt ;  in  the  view  of  all  his  pur- 
pose's and  creation,  and  all  the  happiness  he  knew  would  result 
from  them,  and  which  were  present  to  his  eternal  mind,  who  '*  de- 
clares the  end  from  the  beginning,  saying.  My  counsel  shall  stand, 
and  I  will  do  all  my  pleasure."  If  God  has  desires  to  gratify,  and 
designs  to  accomplish,  it  is  no  impeachment  of  his  independence 
to  say,  he  cannot  be  happy  without  gratifying  them.  It  would 
be  an  impeachment  of  his  independence  if,  in  conformity  with 
some  modern  notions,  he  were  not  able  to  gratify  them.  And 
this  objection  to  their  theory,  the  advocates  of  this  new  the- 
ology have  not,  so  far  as  we  know,  attempted  to  obviate.  If, 
as  they  affirm,  he  has  desires  for  the  salvation  of  men  which 
he  is  not  able  to  gratify,  will  they  tell  us  why  he  is  not  mise- 
rable? Ungratified  desire,  disappointed  purposes,  whether  in 
the  mind  of  creatures,  or  the  Creator,  must  be  the  source  of  pain  ; 
and  the  more  in  the  Creator,  because  his  desires  are  perfectly  holy, 
and  infinitely  ardent  and  strong.  Could  we,  without  irreverence — 
we  regret  there  are  those  who  not  only  make  the  hypothesis,  but 
msist  on  the  fact — could  we  suppose  the  Deity  to  have  one  desire 
which  he  is  unable  to  gratify  :  one  purpose  he  cannot  accomplish ; 
to  us  it  seems,  that  one  ungratified  desire  or  purpose  would  make 
him  wretched.  Most  certainly  his  blessedness  could  not  be  un- 
mixed and  uninterrupted. 

If  there  be  then  any  force  in  these  suggestions,  who  does  not 
see  that  it  is  essential  to  the  eternal,  undisturbed  gratification  of  all 
God's  desires,  and  to  the  accomplishment  of  all  his  purposes,  that 
he  be  infinitely  and  for  ever  glorified  ?  It  is  impossible  his  desires 
should  be  gratified,  and  his  purposes  accomplished,  without  mani- 
festing his  character ;  without  a  full  and  combined  manifestation 
of  his  essential  excellence  ;  just  as  impossible,  as  that  the  effect  can 
exist  without  the  cause.  Thus  to  glorify  himself  is  the  consum- 
mation of  his  every  desire  and  purpose.  The  perfect  goodness  of 
his  pure  and  holy  mind  must  be  gratified  ;  the  exuberant  fulness  of 
his  amiable  and  awful  perfections  must  flow  out ;  and  if  there  were 
anything  effectually  to  obstruct  its  course  and  oppose  its  progress 
he  could  not  be  happy. 

Let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  the  consequences  of  a  possible  de- 
feat and  disappointment  of  some  of  the  benevolent  desires  and 
purposes  of  the  Deity.  What  if  it  were  beyond  his  power  to  carry 
into  efliect  the  designs  of  his  benevolent  mind  ;  what  if  some  grand 
design,  in  the  dispensations  of  providence,  should  fail  of  its  ac- 
complishment ;  what  if  some  endeared  purpose  in  the  method  of 


GOD  THE  END  OF  ALL  THINGS.  27 

redeeming  mercy  should  suffer  defeat ;  what  if  the  gates  of  hell, 
in  an  evil  hour,  should  prevail  against  the  Church ;  what  if  many 
whom  the  Father  has  given  to  the  Son  should  not  come  to  him  ; 
what,  as  some  affirm,  if  the  hard  and  stony  heart  should  prove 
superior  to  his  efficient  grace,  and  multitudes  should  be  lost,  whom 
God,  in  every  view,  sincerely  and  ardently  desires  to  sanctify  and 
save ;  what  if  the  day  of  millennial  mercy  should  never  arrive, 
and  the  earth  never  be  filled  with  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of 
the  Lord,  as  the  waters  fill  the  sea  ;  what  if  the  voice  of  the  arch- 
angel and  the  trump  of  God  should  fail  to  raise  the  dead,  and  sum- 
mon the  universe  to  his  bar ;  what  if  the  righteous  were  shut  out, 
and  the  wicked  received  into  the  kingdom  of  Heaven ;  not  only 
would  every  holy  mind  in  the  universe  lament  and  wail,  but  God 
himself,  no  longer  beholding  and  enjoying  the  joy  and  felicity  of 
his  people,  and  disappointed  in  the  purest  and  sweetest  desires  and 
designs  of  his  wisdom  and  love,  would  no  longer  be  "  God  blessed 
for  ever."  Nor  does  it  at  all  relieve  the  horror  of  this  result,  to 
suppose  that  the  divine  mind  is  indifferent  to  it.  For,  if  his  bene- 
volence were  so  torpid  as  to  be  unmoved  by  such  disappointment, 
if  his  desires  and  designs  of  kindness  could  be  all  erased  from  his 
mind,  and  he  still  remain  unmoved  and  happy,  if  his  perfections 
were  so  inactive  and  retired  as  never  to  be  seen,  and  so  dormant 
as  never  to  be  acted  out,  or  be  sensible  of  injury,  then  he  would  not 
be  God. 

But  we  have  little  need  of  hypotheses  of  this  sort.  God  is  infi- 
nitely happy,  because  he  is,  and  will  be  infinitely  glorified.  Com- 
pared with  the  beauty  and  glory  discoverable  in  the  manifestation 
of  his  character,  created  excellence  is  lost  sight  of  and  forgotten ; 
and  in  such  beauty  and  glory,  it  is  impossible  but  that  the  infinite 
mind  should  take  supreme  delight.  He  is  happy  because  he  is 
glorified,  and  he  must  be  glorified  to  be  happy.  We  venture  no 
rash  expression,  we  say  nothing  dishonourable,  but  what  is  most 
honourable  to  God,  when  we  affirm,  he  would  be  the  most  wretched 
being  in  the  universe,  were  he  not  glorified. 

Thus  would  he  vindicate  the  conduct  of  God  in  making  himself 
his  ultimate  end.  And  let  us  ask,  in  view  of  this  exposition,  what 
ultimate  end  can  be  compared  with  this  ?  What  higher  considera- 
tion, what  weightier  inducement,  what  more  benevolent  impulse 
could  move  the  eternal  mind  than  this?  We  sny,  benevolent  im- 
pulse  ;  because  there  is  no  selfishness  here.  Selfishness  regards 
its  own,  simply  because  it  is  its  own,  and  not  because  it  is  su- 
premely worthy  of  regard.  It  were  a  novel  kind  of  selfishness 
that  is  gratified  only  in  doing  good ;  and  this  is  all  the  selfishness 
discoverable  in  the  ultimate  end  of  Deity.  It  is  true,  that  in  all  his 
vast  operations,  he  makes  himself  first,  himself  midst,  himself  every- 
thing ;  and  the  reason  he  docs  it  is,  that  it  is  so  unspeakably  im- 
portant, as  we  have  seen,  that  he  should  be  all  in  all.  There  is  no 
end  he  could  propose  so  benevolent  as  this.  It  is  an  end,  which, 
from  its  very  nature,  cannot  be  accomplished  without  comprising 


28  GOD  THE  END  OF  ALL  THINGS. 

a  greater  amount  of  good,  than  could  be  secured  in  any  other  way. 
There  is  no  supreme  end  worthy  of  God  but  this.  It  has  been  a 
needless  indifference  to  the  best  interests  of  his  great  empire,  to 
have  aimed  ultimately  at  anything  below  himself.  Never  does 
the  eternal  God  appear  so  excellent,  so  worthy  of  supreme  love, 
confidence,  and  homage,  as  when  the  grand  object  of  his  pursuit  is 
seen  to  rise  far  above  all  the  minor  interests  of  his  creation,  and 
he  himself  is  beheld  **  decked  with  light,  as  with  a  garment,"  and 
creating,  upholding,  and  governing  all  things  for  his  own  glory. 

There  are  several  practical  thoughts  which  we  are  loath  to 
forego,  though  we  have  already  greatly  trespassed  on  the  patience 
of  our  readers. 

To  us  it  appears,  that  the  prominent  truth  contained  in  the  pre- 
ceding remarks,  is  one  which  ought  to  be  frequently  and  faithfully 
exhibited.  There  is  no  principle  of  greater  importance,  either  in  a 
theoretical  or  practical  view,  than  that  God  himself  is  the  ultimate 
end  of  everything  he  does.  There  is  no  truth  with  which  we 
ought  to  be  more  familiar  than  this,  and  none  which  is  capable  of 
being  more  usefully  employed,  either  in  the  confirmation  and  illus- 
tration of  truth,  the  confutation  of  error,  or  the  presentation  of  the 
most  constraining  inducements  to  elevated  and  consistent  piety. 
No  man  can  understand  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  or  discover 
their  beauty  and  consistency,  who  does  not  see  them  in  their  rela- 
tion to  this  important  and  fundamental  truth  ;  and  no  man  can  be 
led  away  by  the  subtilties  of  error  who  does.  Establish  this  prin- 
ciple, and  you  give  a  mortal  wound  to  every  heresy  that  has  dis- 
tracted the  Church  and  the  world ;  relinquish  this,  and  it  is  of  little 
moment  to  which  of  all  the  variety  of  errors  you  give  the  prefer- 
ence. Once  consent  to  come  down  from  the  lofty  elevation  that 
God  is  above  all  creatures,  and  that  all  things  were  made  by  him 
and  for  him,  and  no  matter  how  low  you  fall.  This  truth  is  like  a 
"  moral  perspective  glass,"  it  brings  distant  objects  near,  and  pre- 
sents, in  their  true  and  real  position,  objects  that  are  inverted.  It 
presents  also  a  telescopic  vision  of  the  works  and  ways  of  God,  by 
which  everything  that  he  does  is  magnified,  and  in  which  he  is 
seen  forming  his  purposes  and  laying  out  his  plans  upon  a  scale  of 
magnitude  and  grandeur,  that  overwhelms  the  human  understand- 
ing. If  he  made  all  things  for  himself,  then  it  became  him  to  pro- 
ject and  achieve  a  multitude  of  designs,  the  rectitude  and  magnifi- 
cence of  which,  without  this  ultimate  end,  would  not,  and  could 
not  have  been  seen  by  mortal  eyes.  It  became  him  to  form  all 
his  purposes  from  eternity,  and  with  the  sublime  view  of  demon- 
strating his  own  excellence  and  glory.  It  became  him  to  give  ex- 
istence to  a  world  of  moral  agents,  and  to  extend  his  government 
over  them  through  interminable  ages.  "  It  became  him  by  whom 
are  all  things  and  for  whom  are  all  things,"  to  make  the  captain  of 
our  salvation  perfect  through  sufferings,  and  to  devise  a  method  of 
mercy,  which,  though  to  the  Jew  a  stumbling-block,  and  to  the 
Greek  foolishness,  is  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  to  salvation. 


GOD  THE  END  OF  ALL  THINGS.  29 

It  became  him  to  reveal  the  operations  of  a  mighty  and  invisible 
agent  in  the  moral  renovation  of  his  people,  and  thus  to  produce 
impressions  of  the  Deity  upon  their  minds,  which  shall  prostrate 
them  in  everlasting  humiliation  before  his  throne.  And  it  becomes 
him,  in  his  progressive  administrations,  to  give  no  account  of  any 
of  his  matters  ;  but  to  magnify  his  own  august  dominion,  and  make 
all  intelligences  understand,  that  he  legislates,  not  for  a  province, 
bwt  for  the  universe  ;  and  that  he  plans  and  governs,  not  lor  a  day, 
but  for  an  infinite  lapse  of  ages.  Nothing  so  allures  a  holy  mind 
to  adoring  and  humble  piety,  as  the  thought  that  God  made  all 
things  for  himself,  and  is  governing  all  according  to  the  counsel  of 
his  own  will.  "  I  know,"  saith  the  inspired  preacher,  "  that  what- 
soever God  doeth,  it  shall  be  for  ever :  nothing  can  be  put  to  it, 
nor  anything  taken  from  it ;  and  God  doeth  it  that  men  should  fear 
before  him."  In  a  word,  establish  this  principle,  and  you  shed 
lustre  over  all  the  works  of  God  ;  you  have  a  clue  to  every  laby- 
rinth in  providence,  and  a  solution  of  every  mystery  in  grace ;  you 
have  the  keystone  of  the  arch,  sprung  by  unseen  hands,  when  they 
laid  the  beams  of  his  chambers  in  the  mighty  waters,  and  stretched 
out  the  line  upon  the  foundations  of  the  earth. 

Again:  If  the  suggestions  we  have  made  are  true,  supreme 
selfishness  constitutes  neither  the  religion  of  the  Gospel,  nor 
the  religion  of  heaven.  It  is  very  possible,  that  in  all  our 
religious  affections,  and  in  all  our  religious  conduct,  in  all  we 
do  for  God  and  our  fellow  men,  we  may  have  a  supreme 
regard  to  ourselves.  Not  a  few  moral  philosophers  and  grave 
divines  have  advocated  the  sentiment,  that  all  religion  consists  in  a 
well  directed  selfishness.  But  if  God  himself  is  the  ultimate  end 
of  all  things,  this  is  not  the  religion  of  the  Gospel,  nor  of  heaven. 
It  matters  not  how  wisely,  nor  with  how  much  discretion  a  man 
undertakes  to  exalt  himself,  so  long  as  his  supreme  object  is  not  to 
please  and  glorify  God.  It  is  impossible  for  him,  from  a  supreme 
regard  to  himself,  to  love  and  honour  God  more  than  himself. 
Everything  he  does  may  be  in  itself  lawful,  it  may  be  religious  and 
devout,  it  may  be  very  discreet  and  wise  policy ;  but  if  self  be  his 
grand,  his  ruling  object,  his  spirit  will  be  found  to  differ  essentially 
from  the  spirit  of  angels,  and  of  the  just  made  perfect.  The  mind 
illumined  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  sees  things  as  they  are,  and  appre- 
ciates them  according  to  their  intrinsic  worth.  It  ceases,  in  some 
good  degree,  to  regard  those  that  are  of  no  comparative  moment, 
and  has  learned  to  estimate  those  that  are  of  real  and  permanent 
importance.  And  since  there  is  nothing  of  so  much  importance  as 
that  God  should  be  glorified,  the  real  Christian  desires  nothing  so 
much  as  this.  God  has  the  first  and  highest  place  in  his  heart. 
And  since  he  loves  every  attribute  of  the  divine  character,  so  he 
desires  to  behold  it  in  its  native  beauty.  Every  new  manifestation 
of  the  Deity  raises  the  Creator  in  his  esteem,  sheds  lustre  around 
all  that  God  is,  and  all  that  he  does,  and  often  fills  his  heart  with 
joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory.     The  people  of  God  may  be 


30  GOD  THE  END  OF  ALL  THINGS. 

frequently  under  the  cloud;  but  let  God  appear,  and  the  cloud 
vanishes  away  ;  let  God  be  exalted,  and  they  are  happy.  This  is 
not  selfishness.  This  is  the  religion  of  heaven.  The  religion' 
which  springs  from  selfishness  never  truly  terminates  on  God. 
The  religion  of  the  Gospel  and  of  heaven  neither  springs  from 
self,  nor  terminates  in  self,  but  springs  from  God,  and  terminates 
in  God.  And  the  man  who  has  the  most  of  this  spirit  is  the  most 
godly  man.  There  are  those  who  see  and  rejoice  that  God  will 
be  glorified  ;  and  there  are  those  that  see  he  will  be  glorified,  and 
rebel  and  mourn.  And  wide,  very  wide,  is  the  difference  between 
them !  No  sinful  affections  will  amalgamate  with  the  glory  of 
God.  No  love,  no  faith,  no  submission,  no  hope,  no  joy,  that  has 
not  a  stronger  affinity  to  the  divine  glory,  than  to  any  other  and 
all  other  objects,  will  stand  the  test  of  that  day  that  is  to  "try 
every  man's  work  of  what  sort  it  is." 

Again  :  If  the  leading  sentiment  defended  in  these  pages  be  true, 
most  certain  is  it  that  all  holy  beings  will  be  happy  for  ever.  There 
is  no  need  of  separating  the  glory  of  God  and  the  eternal  happi- 
ness of  his  people.  We  will  not  say  that  they  are  identified ;  for 
one  is  the  effect,  and  the  other  the  cause.  The  eternal,  unchange- 
able Jehovah  has  indissolubly  bound  the  highest  and  eternal  bles- 
sedness of  all  holy  beings  to  the^  manifestation  of  his  own  glory. 
He  cannot  be  glorified  without  making  those  who  love  him  happy  ; 
and  those  who  love  him  cannot  be  happy,  unless  he  is  glorified. 
If  you  would  make  a  good  man  miserable ;  if  you  would  torture 
the  spirits  of  the  just  made  perfect  with  agony,  go,  tell  it  in  heaven, 
that  God  will  not  be  glorified.  But  if  God*  is  glorified,  they  are 
safe,  they  are  happy.  Nothing  can  disturb  their  serenity,  nothing 
diminish  their  rapture.  So  long  as  their  highest  love  terminates 
on  God,  and  their  largest  desires  on  his  glory,  they  shall  be  grati- 
fied to  the  full.  They  shall  behold  his  glory,  even  the  glory  which 
the  Son  had  with  the  Father,  before  the  world  was.  They  shall 
be  filled  with  all  the  fulness  of  God. 

And  be  it  also  remarked,  that  with  equal  certainty  will  the  full 
manifestation  of  the  divine  glory  be  for  ever  inseparable  from  the 
perdition  of  all  the  ungodly.  If  God  is  exalted,  the  wicked  must 
die.  It  is  a  most  fearful  truth,  that  God  cannot  be  glorified  with- 
out the  perdition  of  the  ungodly  ;  and  it  is  a  truth  which  may  well 
carry  death  to  the  hopes  of  every  incorrigible  sinner.  If  there  are 
those  who  will  sin,  and  sin  incorrigibly,  let  them  know  that  God  is 
able  to  glorify  himself  by  it  all.  Their  rebellion  shall  never  dis- 
turb God.  It  shall  not  disturb  one  peaceful  emotion  throughout 
his  holy  and  happy  kingdom.  Though  they  "  mean  not  so,  neither 
in  their  hearts  do  they  think  so ;"  their  incorrigible  wrath  "  shall 
praise  the  Lord,  and  the  remainder  thereof  he  will  restrain."  The 
"expectation  of  the  wicked  shall  perish,"  and  their  "  triumphing  shall 
be  short.''  They  shall  sink  for  ever  under  their  disappointment  and 
shame.  They  will  eternally  rebel  and  mourn,  because  they  can- 
not maintain  a   successful  controversy  with  God.     And  it  will 


GOD  THE  END  OF  ALL  THINGS.  31 

shame  them,  and  it  will  fill  them  with  despair  and  rage,  that  there 
is  One  above  them  who  will  turn  all  their  iniquity  into  the  means 
of  his  own  and  his  people's  advancement.  This  is  the  Hell  to 
which  the  haters  of  God  and  the  despisers  of  his  Son  are  destined. 
And  nothing  can  deliver  them  from  it  but  the  divine  dishonour. 
No,  nothing  can  exalt  them,  but  what  w^ould  humble  God  ;  nothing 
lift  them  up  but  what  would  cast  him  down  ;  nothing  save  them, 
but  what  would  ruin  him.  Oh  !  "it  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  living  God  !"  It  will  be  a  direful  allotment  to  stand 
in  the  place  of  that  man,  on  whom  the  great  God  undertakes  to 
glorify  his  justice. 

But  we  turn  from  this  painful  subject.  Have  we  not,  in  view 
of  the  preceding  illustration,  the  fullest  assurance  of  the  fact,  that 
God  will  be  abundantly  and  for  ever  exalted  ?  "  He  is  of  one  mind, 
and  none  can  turn  him  ;  and  what  his  soul  desireth,  that  he  doeth." 
The  Infinite  One  must  cease  to  be  wise,  good,  and  omnipotent,  ere 
he  abandons  the  paramount  purpose  to  glorify  himself.  His  own 
great  mind  alone  is  capable  of  appreciating  the  worth  and  impor- 
tance of  this  mighty  object.  None  but  himself  is  capable  of  fully 
conceiving  it.  But  his  discerning  eye  has  been  fixed  upon  it  from 
the  beginning,  and  will  be  fixed  upon  it  to  the  consummation  of  all 
things.  Here  all  his  ardent  and  powerful  affections  concentrate. 
The  strength,  the  fervour,  the  zeal  of  his  combined  attributes  are 
engaged,  and  publicly  pledged  to  propel  the  magnificent  and  glo- 
rious design. 

"  God  hath  made  all  things  for  himself."  And  when  we  say 
this  we  utter  a  grand  and  awful  truth.  Whatever  of  majesty  there 
is  in  the  divine  power ;  whatever  of  extent  and  resource  in  the 
divine  wisdom  ;  whatever  of  munificence  in  the  divine  goodness ; 
whatever  of  liberality  and  tenderness  in  the  divine  mercy ;  what- 
ever of  terror  and  dismay  in  the  divine  justice  ;  whatever  of  royalty 
and  splendour  in  the  divine  supremacy,  shall  all  be  progressively 
disclosed.  Every  dark  dispensation  shall,  by  and  by,  be  covered 
with  light,  and  every  intricate  providence  have  a  satisfactory  solu- 
tion. Everything  shall  be  laid  open.  Every  valley  shall  be  ex- 
alted, and  every  mountain  made  low.  The  wonderful  revolutions 
in  the  material,  animal,  and  intellectual  kingdoms,  the  various  and 
unexpected  developments  of  the  human  character,  the  successive 
periods  of  time,  and  the  revolving  ages  of  eternity,  shall  all  be 
fraught  with  deep  and  impressive  illustrations  of  the  Deity. 

"  God  hath  made  all  things  for  himself."  Creation  shall  yet 
more  and  more  unfold  its  wonders,  disclosing  the  hand  of  Deity. 
Providence  shall  yet  more  and  more  bring  to  light  his  universal 
agency  and  care,  while  under  his  omnipotent  influence  its  mighty 
machinery,  like  the  wheel  of  Ezekiel,  shall  move  still  more  high 
and  dreadful  to  the  last.  And  the  great  redemption  shall  yet  more 
and  more  spread  far  and  wide  its  glories.  The  Father  shall  be 
exalted.  Every  knee  shall  bow  before  the  Son,  and  every  tongue 
confess  to  him.     And  the  Eternal  Spirit,  so  long  retired  from  this 


32  GOD  THE  END  OF  ALL  THINGS. 

apostate  world,  shall  be  seen  and  honoured,  and  by  his  own  mighty- 
influence  on  the  soul,  make  impressions  of  the  Deity  hitherto  un- 
known. Ages  so  long  pregnant  with  preparations  for  the  Son  of 
Man,  shall  bring  forth  their  unexpected  blessings.  The  benevo- 
lent exertions  now  making  in  the  earth,  shall  be  succeeded  by  those 
greater  and  more  extended, and  these  by  greater, till "  a  little  one  shall 
become  a  thousand,  and  a  small  one  a  strong  nation — till  the  Spirit 
be  poured  from  on  high,  and  the  wilderness  become  a  fruitful  field" 
— till  these  clouds  of  mercy,  the  glory  of  the  age  in  which  we  dwell 
and  the  hope  of  ages  to  come,  shall  issue  in  one  extended  and  long 
continued  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit — till  the  earth  shall  become  a 
temple,  and  time  a  Sabbath,  and  these  humble  notes,  so  indistinctly 
heard  from  here  and  there,  a  voice  scattered  over  this  wide  crea- 
tion, shall  receive  the  accession  of  ten  thousand  tongues,  and  burst 
forth  in  one  harmonious  Alleluja  to  Him  who  is  seated  on  the 
throne,  and  to  the  Lamb,  for  ever  and  ever. 


ESSAY    III. 


SYSTEMS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

fUBLISHED    IN    1832. 


A  SYSTEM  of  theology  is  a  methodical  disposition  of  scriptural 
doctrines,  with  due  connexion  and  arrangement,  so  far  as  they  are 
susceptible  of  a  scientific  form.  Such  a  work  may  contain  either 
a  simple  enunciation  of  truths  under  appropriate  topics,  or  the  body 
of  proof  by  which  these  are  sustained.  But  within  the  latitude  of 
our  definition  are  comprised,  not  only  the  volumes  of  professed 
theologians,  but  even  confessions,  catechisms,  and  other  symbolical 
books  of  churches. 

The  origin  of  systems  is  to  be  sought  in  the  laws  of  the  human 
mind.  The  Scriptures  present  us  with  divine  truth,  not  in  logical 
or  scientific  order,  but  dispersed  irregularly  under  the  various  forms 
of  history,  precepts,  promises,  threatenings,  exhortations,  and  pro- 
phecies. '  It  is  scarcely  left  to  the  option  of  the  reader  whether  he 
will  classify  these  truths  in  his  own  mind  ;  for  this  classification 
begins  and  is  pursued,  spontaneously,  with  regard  to  all  depart- 
ments of  human  knowledge.  Every  man,  whose  reasoning  faculty 
rises  above  that  of  the  idiot,  is  conscious  of  an  attempt  to  refer 
each  successive  acquisition  of  knowledge  to  its  proper  place  in  the 
general  fund  of  his  recollections,  and  to  connect  it  with  its  like 
among  that  which  is  already  known. 

It  is  very  evident  that  the  order  of  truths  as  they  are  presented 
in  the  Scripture,  is  not  intended  to  be  the  only  order  in  which  they 
shall  be  entertained  in  the  mind.  If  this  were  the  case,  all  medi- 
tation would  be  useless,  since  this  exercise  does  not  reveal  new 
doctrines,  but,  by  giving  rise  to  comparison  "of  those  already 
known,  in  various  connexions,  discovers  the  relations  and  depen- 
dencies of  all.  The  illustration  of  Lord  Bacon  is  well  known  : 
the  water  of  life  as  contained  in  the  fountain  of  the  Scriptures  is 
thence  drawn  and  set  before  us,  very  much  in  the  same  manner  as 
natural  water  is  taken  from  wells.  For  wlien  the  latter  is  drawn, 
it  is  either  first  received  into  a  reservoir,  whence,  by  divers  pipes 

3 


34  SYSTEMS    OF    THEOLOGY. 

it  may  conveniently  be  conducted  abroad  for  general  use  ;  or  it  is 
at  once  poured  into  vessels  for  immediate  service.  The  former 
methodical  way,  adds  this  philosopher,  gives  origin  to  systems  of 
theology,  by  which  scriptural  doctrine  is  collected  in  scientific 
form,  and  thence  distributed,  by  the  conduits  of  axioms  and  propo- 
sitions, to  every  part.* 

No  primitive  Christian  could  have  answered  the  question.  What 
is  Christianity  ?  without  proceeding  to  systematize  its  truths  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree ;  and  every  reader  of  the  holy  Scriptures 
undesignedly  pursues  the  same  method.  For  instance,  the  various 
attributes  of  God  are  revealed  in  Scripture,  not  in  theological 
order,  nor  consecutively,  but  in  various  places,  by  means  of  scat- 
tered examples,  sometimes  figuratively,  sometimes  by  implication, 
and  never  all  at  once.  Now  it  is  manifestly  desirable  that  every 
man  should  have  a  connected  idea  of  the  perfections  of  Jehovah  ; 
and  the  reader  of  the  Bible  will  necessarily  lay  together  the  vari- 
ous representations,  and  thus  conclude  that  God  is  spiritual,  eter- 
nal, infinite,  immutable,  omniscient,  omnipresent,  omnipotent,  most 
true,  most  holy,  most  wise,  and  most  good.  This  aggregation  of 
truths  is,  in  fact,  a  system,  and  it  is  precisely  thus  that  systematic 
theology  has  its  origin.  No  man  can  converse  with  a  Scottish 
mechanic,  who  happens  to  be  a  good  textuary,  without  discerning 
that  he  has  his  heads  and  topics  to  which  he  refers  all  his  scriptu- 
ral knowledge,  and  that  the  doctrines  which  he  believes  are  re- 
duced to  a  classification  more  or  less  exact.  Indeed,  each  of  us 
may  bring  the  matter  to  a  speedy  test  by  looking  within  and 
inquiring  whether  such  an  arrangement  of  our  religious  tenets  is 
not  constantly  going  forward,  with  the  gradual  increase  of  our 
settled  opinions.  This  will  be  clear  or  obscure,  logical  or  con- 
fused, according  to  the  correctness  and  extent  of  our  knowledge, 
and  the  sagacity  and  vigour  of  our  intellect.  It  may  be  vitiated 
by  the  addition  of  that  which  is  extraneous,  or  by  false  expositions 
of  Scripture  ;  but  such  a  syllabus  of  divine  truth  is  possessed,  in 
memory  if  not  in  writing,  by  every  Christian,  whether  wise  or 
simple. 

The  association  of  ideas  affords  a  natural  ground  for  classifica- 
tion ;  though  by  no  means  the  sole  ground.  Mere  similarity  of 
particulars  may  serve  as  a  basis  for  technical  arrangement,  as  in 
the  Linnsean  system  of  botany,  but  this  is  scarcely  a  philosophical 
method.  The  more  any  department  of  knowledge  partakes  of  the 
character  of  a  pure  science,  the  greater  is  its  susceptibility  of  being 
systematized ;  and  this  is  eminently  the  character  of  divine  truth. 
There  was  a  time,  indeed,  when  the  question  was  mooted,  whether 
theology  is  a  science,  but  that  time  has  gone  by,  and  with  it  should 
have  vanished  the  occasion  of  the  present  argument. 

There  is  danger,  however,  that  we  shall  be  charged  with  disre- 
spect to  the  understanding  of  our  readers,  in  offering  serious  proof 

•  De  Augm.  Scient,,  lib,  Ix.,  c,  i.,  §  3. 


SYSTEMS    OF    THEOLOGY.  35 

of  a  position  so  tenable,  and  which,  but  for  party  zeal,  would  never 
have  been  controverted.  For  what  are  all  theological  discussions 
but  so  many  systems  ?  Every  didactic  sermon  is  a  systematized 
chapter  of  the  great  book  of  revelation.  Every  essay  or  discourse 
upon  any  scriptural  truth  is  an  attempt  to  arrange,  under  certain 
topics  and  with  conclusive  arguments,  the  scattered  testimony  of 
inspiration  in  favour  of  that  truth.  The  only  effect  of  banishing 
professed  systems  would  therefore  be,  to  repress  all  endeavours  to 
present  the  subject  as  a  harmonious  whole,  and  to  leave  us  in  pos- 
session of  schemes  characterized  by  undigested  crudity. 

The  logical  and  systematic  arrangement  of  a  science  has  vari- 
ous important  uses.  It  affords  aid  to  the  memory  ;  since  a  thou- 
sand insulated  and  disjointed  truths  can  scarcely  be  kept  in  remem- 
brance, while,  in  their  regular  connexion  and  mutual  dependency, 
they  may  be  tenaciously  retained,  and  clearly  communicated.  The 
knowledge  of  a  subject  may  be  said  to  be  adequate,  only  when  it 
is  thus  known.  The  heterogeneous  mass  is  clarified  and  reduced 
to  order,  by  being  ranged  under  topics  according  to  the  inherent 
differences  of  the  several  species,  and  set  off  into  departments, 
with  reference  to  the  distinction  of  elementary,  secondary,  and 
inferential  positions.  Thus  in  the  study  of  natural  history, 
although  the  classification  of  the  received  systems  is  in  a  measure 
arbitrary  (that  is,  independent  of  the  philosophical  connexion  of 
cause  and  effect),  those  things  which  are  homogeneous  are  placed 
together,  and  the  mind  is  enabled  to  comprehend  w^hat  would 
otherwise  be  "  a  mighty  maze,  and  all  without  a  plan."  In  the 
progress  of  study,  as  knowledge  is  augmented,  it  is  highly  advan- 
tageous to  have  a  predisposed  scheme,  to  some  niche  of  which 
every  new  acquisition  may  immediately  be  referred,  as  to  its  pro- 
per place  in  the  system.  This  is  true,  even  when  the  scheme  is 
framed  in  a  merely  technical  and  arbitrary  manner.  Such  was 
the  classification  of  minerals,  as  practised  before  the  late  discove- 
ries in  crystallography  ;  and  such  the  science  of  chemistry  con- 
tinues to  be  in  many  of  its  departments.  But  the  advantage  is 
immensely  greater,  when,  as  is  true  of  theology,  the  subject  admits 
of  a  natural,  exact,  and  philosophical  disposition.  It  is  only  under 
such  a  form  of  arrangement  that  we  can  be  in  the  highest  degree 
made  sensible  of  the  admirable  and  divine  harmony  of  all  reli- 
gious truth,  which  necessarily  escapes  us  in  the  examination  of 
detached  and  dissociated  fragments.  The  system,  however  brief 
or  imperfect,  affords  a  convenient  test  of  propositions  which  might 
otherwise  pass  unsuspected,  and  a  guide  in  applying  the  analogy 
of  faith  to  interpretation. 

But  it  is  as  affording  a  special  facility  for  communicating  instruc- 
tion to  others,  that  we  wish  to  be  considered  as  recommending  the 
systematic  arrangement  of  theology.  The  history  of  catechetical 
instruction,  in  every  age,  furnishes  a  commentary  upon  this  re- 
mark. In  applying  ourselves  to  the  study  of  any  science,  we  have 
our  choice  between  two  discrepant  methods.    "By  the  one,  we 


36  SYSTEMS    OF    THEOLOGY. 

make  a  commencement,  indifferently,  with  any  separate  fact  or 
proposition,  without  reference  to  its  place  in  the  general  scheme  ; 
and  travelling  onward  from  this  point,  through  the  whole,  we 
attempt  to  acquire  the  knowledge  of  all  the  parts  ;  traversing  in 
succession  departments  the  most  remote  and  unconnected.  As  if, 
for  example,  one  should  attempt  to  acquire  the  science  of  astro- 
nomy by  commencing  with  observations  on  the  ring  of  Saturn, 
thence  passing  to  the  milky  way,  or  the  moon's  libration,  and  then 
assailing  the  obliquity  of  the  ecliptic.  By  the  other  method,  we 
commence  with  simple,  acknowledged,  and  fundamental  principles, 
proceed  to  the  demonstration  of  elementary  propositions,  and 
thence  by  regular  deduction  to  the  ramifications  of  the  subject. 
The  latter  is  the  systematic  method,  and  cause  is  yet  to  be  shown 
why  it  should  not  hold  good  in  theology,  as  well  as  in  other  sci- 
ences. The  history  of  the  Church  shows  us  that  from  the  earliest 
ages  it  has  been  deemed  advisable  to  abstract  the  truths  of  reve- 
lation in  a  systematic  form,  for  the  convenience  of  instructers  and 
pupils,  for  the  aid  of  memory,  and  for  the  purpose  of  displaying 
the  completeness  and  coherence  of  the  entire  plan  of  scriptural 
knowledge.  In  certain  periods,  it  is  true,  flagrant  abuses  have 
been  connected  with  these  methods,  especially  during  the  reign 
of  the  Peripatetic  philosophy  :  yet  there  has  been  an  entire  unity 
of  opinion  as  to  the  general  expediency  of  the  plan.  It  may  not 
be  inappropriate  here  to  advert  to  some  of  the  predominant  schools 
of  systematic  theology. 

Omitting  any  particular  notice  of  the  patristical  systems,  we 
shall  name  a  few  of  those  writers  who  contributed  to  the  mass  of 
doctrinal  theology  before  the  Reformation.  There  are  those  who 
trace  the  origin  of  the  scholastic  divinity  to  as  high  an  epoch  as 
the  monophysitic  controversy  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries  ;  yet 
it  is  more  usual  to  consider  John  Scotus  Erigena,  a  theologian  of 
the  ninth  century,  as  the  founder  of  this  method.  It  was,  how- 
ever, the  Platonic  philosophy  by  which  he  endeavoured  to  eluci- 
date divine  truth.  He  signalized  himself  as  an  antagonist  of  the 
Predestinarians,  in  the  court  of  Charles  the  Bold.  The  School- 
men, or  Scholastics,  are  supposed  to  have  been  so  called  from 
their  training  in  the  theological  schools  of  Charlemagne.  This 
training  was  little  else  than  regular  instruction  in  the  Latin  version 
of  Aristotle,  the  writings  of  Boethius  and  Porphyry,  and  the  Peri- 
papetic  dialectics.  Three  periods  are  noted  by  Buhle :  the  first 
ends  with  Roscellinus  (a.  d.  1089),  or  the  contest  between  the 
Realists  and  Nominalists ;  the  second  with  Albertus  Magnus 
(ob.  1280),  at  which  time  the  metaphysics  of  Aristotle  were  gene- 
rally known  and  expounded  ;  the  third  extends  to  the  revival  of 
letters  in  the  fifteenth  century.*  The  renowned  Englishman, 
Alexander  de  Hales,  holds  an  eminent  rank  among  the  ancient 


*  Brockhaus  Real-Worterb.,  vol.  ix.,  p.  835.     Buddei  Isagoge,  p.  326.     Hornii 
Hist.  Phil.,  1.  vi.  cii.  p.  297. 


SYSTEMS    OF    THEOLOGY.  3/ 

scholastics,  as  is  commonly  cited  as  Doctor  Irrefragahilis :  until 
the  time  of  Aquinas,  his  commentary  on  Lombard  was  a  univer- 
sal text-book.  Thomas  Aquinas,  Doctor  Angelicus,  and  a  saint  of 
the  calendar,  was  the  pupil  of  Albertus  Magnus,  and  so  close  an 
adherent  of  Aristotle,  that  he  left  fifty-two  commentaries  upon  the 
works  of  the  latter.  It  is  unnecessary  to  advert  to  the  estimation 
in  which  he  has  ever  been  held  by  the  Romanists ;  although  it  has 
been  satisfactorily  shown  by  Protestants  that  this  truly  great  man 
diverged  in  a  multitude  of  instances  from  the  doctrines  of  the 
Catholic  faith  as  they  are  now  defined.*  Next  in  eminence  was 
his  great  competitor,  John  Duns  Scotus,  whose  dialectic  acumen 
was  proverbial,  and  who  is  denominated  Doctor  Subtilis.  From 
this  rivalry  of  sects  arose  the  familiar  distinctions  of  Thomists  and 
Scotists.  During  the  third  period  flourished  the  celebrated 
Durand,  called  on  account  of  his  independent  boldness.  Doctor 
Resolutissimus.  This  remarkable  man  was  bishop  of  Meaux,  and 
died  about  the  year  1333.  He  went  out  from  the  ranks  of  the 
Thomists,  and  without  going  over  to  the  opposite  sect  became 
the  founder  of  a  new  school.  He  is  supposed  by  Staeudlin  to 
have  contributed  greatly  to  the  downfall  of  the  scholastic  system. 
To  these  may  be  added  Occam,  an  English  Franciscan,  who 
opposed  the  papacy  and  encouraged  a  more  liberal  method  in 
theology  ;  and  Bradwardin,  who  openly  attacked  the  scholastic 
system,  and  maintained  that  the  genuine  or  Augustinian  doctrines 
had  been  exchanged  for  mere  Pelagianism.  His  work,  de  Causa 
Dei  contra  Pelagium,  contains  much  that  savours  of  a  purer 
theology. 

This  was  the  dawn  of  a  brighter  day  for  religious  investigation. 
In  looking  back  from  this  point  upon  all  the  dialectic  school,  we 
are  struck  with  the  darkness  which  overspread  the  field  of 
theology  in  consequence  of  the  multitude  of  sects,  the  introduc- 
tion of  foreign  principles  and  speculations,  the  contempt  thrown 
upon  sound  exegesis,  the  almost  divine  honours  paid  to  philoso- 
phers and  doctors,  and  the  barbarous  roughness  with  which  every 
subject  was  handled.  The  bounds  of  human  reason  were  over- 
leaped, and  a  recondite  sophistry  usurped  the  place  of  candid  argu- 
ment. It  is  not,  therefore,  in  this  period  that  we  are  to  seek  for 
anything  like  purity  in  theological  systems. 

The  Reformation  gave  birth  to  a  new  school  of  dogmatic  theo- 
logy. Luther,  indeed,  though  celebrated  as  a  logician,  left  no 
work  strictly  pertaining  to  this  class ;  but  in  the  Loci  Communes 
of  Melancthon,  we  have  a  model  which  might  do  honour  to  the 
brightest  age  of  scriptural  investigation.  It  is  pleasing  to  observe 
with  what  deference  this  good  man  was  regarded  by  his  bolder 
coadjutors.  The  first  edition  of  this  earliest  system  reformed  theo- 
logy appeared  at  Wittemberg,  a.  d.  1521.t  Luther  characterized 
the  work,  as  "  invictum  libellum,  et  non  solum  immortalitate,  sed 

*  Dorschaeus.     Aquinas  Confessor  Veritatis.  f  Buddeus,  p.  346. 


38  SYSTEMS    OF    THEOLOGY. 

quoque  canone  dignum."*  In  the  Reformed  Church,  we  need  not 
remind  the  reader  of  the  compendious  works  of  Zwingle  and  the 
Institutes  of  Calvin.  The  latter  work  has  passed  through  innu- 
merable editions,  and  has  appeared  in  the  Latin,  French,  Spanish, 
English,  German,  Dutch,  Hungarian  and  Greek  languages.  In  the 
Lutheran  Church  might  be  mentioned  the  leading  names  of  Calix- 
tus,  Chemnitz,  Striegel,  Gerhard,  Horneius,  Henichius,  Hulsemann, 
Calvius,  and  Koenig  ;  in  the  Reformed  Church,  Beza,  Bullinger, 
Musculus,  Aretius,  Heidegger,  Turretine  and  Pictet.  It  would  be 
unjust  to  the  memory  of  the  divines  of  Holland,  who  more  than  all 
others  cultivated  this  field,  to  omit  the  names  of  Rivet,  Maresius, 
Hoornbeeck,  and  the  Spanheims,  all  of  whom  followed  the  phi- 
losophical school  of  Voet ;  and  Burmann,  Heidan,  Wittichius, 
Braunius,  Witsius,  Leydecker  and  Hulsius,  who  pursued  the  system 
of  the  covenants,  as  marked  out  by  Cocceius. 

But  time  would  fail  us  in  following  down  the  stream  of  systema- 
tic writers.  This  was  the  age  of  systems,  and  a  lifetime  would 
scarcely  suffice  to  study  those  which  it  produced.  Most  of  these 
last  mentioned  were  free,  to  a  remarkable  degree,  from  the  techni- 
cal distinctions  of  the  schools,  and  may  be  used  with  profit.  It  is 
at  least  desirable  that  every  theologian  should  be  acquainted  with 
the  history  of  religious  opinion.  We  have  fallen  upon  days  in 
which  works  of  this  nature  are  little  prized,  and  in  which  essays, 
pamphlets,  and  periodicals,  are  almost  the  only  vehicles  of  theo- 
logical discussion.  Of  this  it  is  needless  to  complain,  yet  it  is  mor- 
tifying that  so  much  unmerited  contempt  should  be  cast  upon  the 
learned  labours  of  other  days.  There  are  few  eminent  scholars, 
it  is  true,  who  join  in  this  cant ;  yet  scarcely  a  week  passes  in 
which  our  attention  is  not  drawn  to  some  ignorant  and  captious 
disparagement  of  all  productions  of  this  kind.  There  are  persons 
who  never  deign  to  mention  systematic  theology  without  a  sneer, 
and  whose  purposes  seem  to  demand  that  they  should  represent  all 
books  in  this  department  as  assuming  a  rivalship  with  the  sacred 
Scriptures.  We  disavow  the  wish  to  attribute  these  sentiments 
and  objections  to  any  particular  school,  or  to  connect  them  with 
any  doctrinal  opinions  held  by  our  brethren ;  except  so  far  as  this, 
that  they  are  usually  avowed  by  those  who  contend  for  greater 
latitude  in  speculation,  and  who  protest  against  any  interference 
with  their  innovating  projects.  No  very  distinguished  writer  has 
presented  himself  as  their  advocate,  and  they  are  usually  heard  to 
proceed  from  youthful  and  hasty  declaimers,  yet  the  arguments 
even  of  these  demand  a  refutation  when  they  spread  their  contagion 
among  the  inexperienced  ;  and  we  would  gladly  contribute 
towards  a  disentanglement  of  the  question. 

It  would  be  an  unwarrantable  hardihood  to  deny  that,  among  the 
volurpes  of  past  ages,  there  are  systems  which  lie  open  to  valid 
objections ;  but  the  faults  of  some  are  not  to  be  attributed  to  the 

♦  Luth.  Op.,  ii.,  241,  Wittemb. 


SYSTEMS    OF   THEOLOGY.  39 

whole  class.  Thus,  for  instance,  it  is  common  to  charge  the  whole 
of  the  continental  theologians  with  the  scholastic  subtleties  of  the 
middle  age.  The  systems  of  the  schoolmen  are,  indeed,  noto- 
riously chargeable  with  dialectic  refinements,  and  it  is  not  strange 
that  some  of  the  same  leaven  should  betray  itself  in  the  writings 
of  the  early  reformers,  just  emerging  as  they  were  from  the 
dreary  night  of  barbarism.  The  objection  lies  against  most  of  the 
Romish  systems.  Revelation  is  here  confounded  with  philosophy  ; 
the  Scriptures  are  perverted  into  accordance  with  traditions  and 
the  schools ;  and  the  questions  which  perpetually  arise  are,  in  a 
majority  of  instances,  frivolous  and  ridiculous,  or  knotty  and  osten- 
tatious. Such,  however,  are  not  the  faults  of  our  received  works, 
and  the  only  trait  which  they  have  in  common  with  the  former,  is 
that  they  profess  to  communicate  the  doctrines  of  the  faith,  in 
regular  connexion,  with  scientific  order  and  method,  and  some- 
times with  the  technical  language  of  the  then  predominant  phi- 
losophy. The  terminology  of  the  reformers  and  their  immediate 
successors  is  a  dialect  of  which  no  literary  antiquary  will  consent 
to  remain  ignorant ;  it  is  a  source  of  alarm  to  students  who  consult 
their  ease,  and  even  grave  divines  among  us  have  been  sadly  dis- 
concerted with  the  materialiter,  formcditer,  &c.,  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.  Yet  the  history  of  theological  opinion  can  never 
be  learned,  in  its  sources,  without  some  knowledge  of  this  peculiar 
phraseology. 

The  plan  or  schedule  according  to  which  a  system  is  arranged 
may  be  artificial,  unnatural,  arbitrary,  or  otherwise  inconvenient. 
It  is  not  every  mind  which  can  be  satisfied  with  the  method  pur- 
sued by  so  many  eminent  divines,  especially  in  Holland,  in  arrang- 
ing the  whole  circle  of  truth  with  reference  to  the  covenants. 
Others  are  as  much  displeased  with  a  historical  or  chronological 
plan  which  has  been  attempted.  Or  the  whole  work  may  labour 
under  a  fault  of  an  opposite  character,  namely,  the  want  of 
method,  and  under  the  title  of  a  system  may  be  an  unsystematized 
farrago.  Yet  in  all  such  cases,  though  the  objection  is  granted  to 
be  valid,  yet  the  excellence  of  systems,  as  such,  is  no  whit  dis- 
paraged by  the  failure  of  special  attempts ;  and  indeed  it  is  not 
upon  these  grounds  that  the  exception  is  usually  taken. 

Again,  the  system  may  be  objectionable,  as  being  incautiously 
and  hastily  framed,  upon  insufficient  testimony  of  the  Scriptures. 
Every  methodized  body  of  theological,  doctrine  may  be  considered 
as  a  general  theory  of  the  whole  sphere  of  divine  truth.  As  such, 
it  should  be  deduced  directly  from  the  Scriptures,  after  a  most 
careful  survey  and  impartial  comparison  of  all  its  doctrines.  The 
work  of  the  theologian  here  resembles  that  of  the  philosopher  who 
reasons  from  natural  phenomena.  There  is,  indeed,  this  important 
difference,  that  the  philosopher  is  mainly  employed  in  observing 
the  sequence  of  cause  and  effect,  and  in  assigning  all  the  changes 
in  natural  objects  to  their  true  causes,  and  to  as  few  causes  as 
possible ;    thus  by  induction  arriving  at  general  laws — whereas 


40  SYSTEMS    OF    THEOLOGY. 

the  theologian  is  called  to  arrange  isolated  truths,  already  revealed 
in  the  form  of  propositions,  and  by  reducing  these  to  order,  to  dis- 
cover the  plan  and  harmony  of  religious  science.  In  both  cases, 
however,  there  is  the  same  process  to  be  observed  ;  facts  or  pro- 
positions must  be  ascertained,  generalized,  placed  in  the  same 
category  with  analogous  truths,  and  reserved  until  new  light 
enables  us  to  refer  them  to  more  comprehensive  laws  or  prin- 
ciples. Now,  if  in  physical  science  it  is  so  highly  important  that 
caution  should  be  used  in  this  process,  so  as  to  avoid  leaping  to  a 
conclusion  without  a  sufficient  induction,  how  great  should  be  the 
patience,  self-distrust,  and  hesitancy  of  one  who  undertakes  to  pro- 
nounce upon  the  great  mysteries  of  revelation.  "  The  liberty  of 
speculation  which  we  possess  in  the  domains  of  theory  is  not  like 
that  of  the  slave  broke  loose  from  his  fetters,  but  rather  like  that  of 
the  freeman  who  has  learned  the  lessons  of  self-restraint  in  the 
school  of  just  subordination."*  This  is  the  dictate  of  sound  phi- 
losophy in  every  investigation  ;  it  teaches  us  not  to  reject  system, 
but  to  systematize  wisely.  It  is  the  neglect  of  this  rule  which  has 
given  occasion  to  the  scores  of  heresies  with  which  the  Church  has 
been  rent.  Doctrines  taken  up  from  the  superficial  and  apparent 
meaning  of  a  few  texts,  have  been  made  the  foundation  of  theories 
which  have  possessed  scarcely  a  trait  of  genuine  Christianity.  Yet 
even  when  a  system  is  absolutely  false,  the  objection  prostrates 
only  that  particular  scheme  which  is  proved  to  be  erroneous.  And 
the  question  still  remains  open,  how  lar  systematic  arrangement  is 
conducive  to  the  progress  of  sound  theology. 

The  favourite  argument  of  many  is  this :  The  Scriptures  do  not 
admit  of  being  systematized.  This  cannot  be  more  impressively 
stated  than  in  the  words  of  Cecil :  "  The  Bible  scorns  to  be  treated 
scientifically.  After  all  your  accurate  statements,  it  will  leave  you 
aground.  The  Bible  does  not  come  round  and  ask  your  opinion 
of  its  contents.  It  proposes  to  us  a  Constitution  of  Grace,  which 
we  are  to  receive,  though  we  do  not  wholly  comprehend  it.""f-  In 
this  argument  the  premises  are  stated  with  sufficient  clearness,  but 
we  confess  ourselves  unable  to  make  the  necessary  deduction  of 
the  conclusion.  This  was  the  position  of  the  Anabaptists  and  the 
Quakers.  J  It  may  mean  either  that  divine  truth  is  in  its  own  na- 
ture insusceptible  of  a  regular  scientific  arrangement,  or  that  it  is 
impracticable  for  human  minds  so  to  arrange  it.  We  contend  that 
so  long  as  it  is  granted  that  the  propositions  contained  in  Scripture 
are  so  many  truths,  that  these  are  harmonious  and  accordant,  and 
that  some  flow  by  necessary  inference  from  others,  it  follows  that 
the  doctrines  of  revelation  may  be  topically  arranged,  exhibited, 
and  discussed.  Some  religious  truths  do,  indeed,  surpass  our  rea- 
son, but  it  is  a  mere  sophism  to  argue  that  they  are  therefore  thrown 
beyond  the  limits  of  any  conceivable  system ;  for  this  wery  cha- 

*  Discourse  on  the  Study  of  Natural  Philosophy,  §  201.  t  Remains,  p.  US. 

X  Barclay's  Apology,  Orig.  Thes.  x.,  §  21.     Van  Mastricht.,  lib.  1,  c.  i.,  §  6. 


SYSTEMS    OF    THEOLOGY.  41 

racteristic  may  designate  their  place  among  ultimate  propositions. 
If  it  is  asserted  that  the  imbecility  of  human  minds  is  such  that 
they  cannot  arrange  and  classify  the  whole  of  divine  truths,  inas- 
much as  these  are  absolutely  intractable,  and  refuse  to  arrange 
themselves  under  any  of  our  general  topics, — we  reply  that  this 
would  put  an  end  to  physical  philosophy  itself,  for  the  same  re- 
mark holds  good  in  nature.  There  are  exempt  cases,  extreme  phe- 
nomena, which  are  as  yet  explicable  by  no  laws  of  science,  and 
which  must  remain  beyond  the  range  of  all  systems  as  elementary 
facts.  Such  are  the  attraction  of  gravitation  and  the  principle  of 
animated  life.  Still,  there  are  a  thousand  truths  which  continue  to 
be  free  from  these  difficulties,  and  which  may  be  methodized  with 
profit. 

If  it  should  be  urged  that  the  simple  method  in  which  God  has 
been  pleased  to  arrange  truth  in  the  Bible  is  the  only  proper  method, 
and  that  this  beautiful  simplicity  is  vitiated  by  the  artifice  of  sys- 
tems, we  reverently  acknowledge  that  the  order  of  divine  revela- 
tion in  the  Scripture  is  the  best  conceivable  for  the  immediate  end 
proposed.  Yet  the  nature  of  truth  is  not  altered  by  a  change  in 
the  arrangement  of  propositions ;  nor  is  its  simplicity  taken  away 
by  scientific  disposition.  Moreover,  the  argument  destroys  itself 
by  proving  too  much.  For,  by  parity  of  reason,  all  discourses  and 
essays  on  theology,  all  sermons  and  exhortations  of  a  religious  kind, 
must  equally  violate  this  divinely  prescribed  order,  since  they  cull 
and  dispose  the  passages  of  Scripture,  not  in  the  method  observed 
in  the  sacred  volume,  but  with  reference  to  some  truth  or  truths 
attempted  to  be  established.  No  one  can  fail  to  perceive  the 
frivolity  of  an  argument  which  would  restrict  all  theology  to  the 
regular  consecution  of  chapters  and  verses  in  the  Bible. 

It  has  been  alleged,  that  the  use  of  systems  has  had  a  tendency 
to  restrict  the  belief  of  the  theologian  within  certain  prescribed 
limits,  and  thus  to  arm  the  mind  against  conviction  from  passages 
which,  to  an  unsophisticated  reader,  would  be  clear  and  decisive  ; 
and  that  what  is  called  the  Analogy  of  Faith  is  a  barrier  against 
independent  investigation.  The  application  of  any  such  analogy 
to  the  exposition  of  Scripture  has  been  strenuously  opposed  in 
modern  times.  That  the  principle  may  be  abused,  is  too  evident 
to  admit  of  denial.  Yet,  unless  the  interpreter  pursues  the  course 
of  neological  commentators,  utterly  careless  whether  the  sacred 
penmen  contradicted  themselves  or  not, — this  rule,  or  something 
tantamount,  must  be  applied.  It  is  tjie  dictate  of  reason  that — a 
revelation  from  God  being  admitted — all  real  contradictions  are 
impossible.  Hence,  when  a  class  of  truths  is  satisfactorily  deduced, 
all  those  which  do  not  quadrate  with  these,  in  their  obvious  mean- 
ing, must  be  interpreted  with  such  latitude  as  may  bring  them  into 
unison  with  the  whole.  In  all  interpretation  of  works,  sacred  and 
profane,  single  passages  must  be  understood  in  accordance  with 
the  general  tenor  of  the  discourse.  Indeed,  so  plainly  is  this  a  prin- 
ciple of  hermeneutics,  that  we  should  never  have  heard  the  objec- 


42  SYSTEMS    OF    THEOLOGY. 

tion,  if  certain  unwelcome  doctrinal  positions  had  not  been  in- 
volved. There  are  truths  which  lie  upon  the  very  surface  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  are  repeated  in  almost  every  page :  these  taken 
together  give  origin  to  the  analogy  or  canon  of  faith.  The  force 
of  reasoning  from  such  an  analogy  must  vary  with  the  extent  of 
the  reader's  scriptural  knowledge,  and  the  strength  of  his  convic- 
tions. Every  man,  however,  whether  imbued  or  not  with  human 
systems,  reasons  in  this  manner.  It  is  by  the  analogy  of  faith 
that  we  pronounce  the  literal  interpretation  untenable  in  all  those 
cases  which  represent  God  as  the  author  of  moral  evil,  or  which 
attribute  to  him  human  members  and  passions.  So  long,  there- 
fore, as  God  "  cannot  deny  himself,"  we  must  resort  to  this  very 
principle. 

The  simple  inquiry  appears  then  to  be,  whether  the  use  of  a  ju- 
dicious system  opens  the  door  for  the  abuse  of  the  analogy  of  faith. 
It  is  contended  that  it  necessarily  does  so  by  expanding  this  ana- 
logy so  far  as  to  make  the  whole  of  a  certain  theological  system  a 
canon  of  faith,  which  nothing  is  suffered  to  contravene.  There 
are  slavish  minds  in  which  this  effect  will  doubtless  be  produced ; 
but  the  result  in  such  cases  would  be  the  same  if,  instead  of  a  writ- 
ten system,  the  learner  availed  himself  of  the  oral  effusions  of  some 
idolized  errorist.  And  in  this  whole  controversy,  let  it  be  observed, 
the  choice  is  at  last  between  the  dead  and  the  living,  between  the 
tried  systems  of  the  ancients  and  the  ill-compacted  schemes  of 
contemporaries.  We  forget  the  place  which  has  been  assigned  to 
the  theological  system  when  we  hold  it  responsible  for  excesses  of 
this  kind.  It  is  by  no  means  a  rule  of  faith,  else  were  it  needless 
to  refer  to  the  Bible.  It  may  be  compared  to  the  map  of  a  country 
over  which  a  geographer  travels,  and  which  affords  convenient 
direction,  while  at  the  same  time  the  traveller  does  not  -hold  it  to 
be  perfect,  but  proceeds  to  amend  it  by  actual  survey.  Without 
it  he  might  lose  his  way,  yet  he  is  unwilling  to  give  implicit  faith 
to  its  representations. 

There  are  many  problems  in  analytic  mathematics  in  which  the 
unknown  quantity  is  to  be  sought  by  successive  approximations. 
In  these  cases  it  is  necessary  to  assume  some  result  as  true,  and  to 
correct  it  by  comparison  with  the  data.  Not  unlike  this  is  the 
process  by  which  we  arrive  at  cei;tain  conclusions  in  the  other 
sciences,  and  in  theology  among  the  rest.  If  in  the  course  of  our 
investigation  we  are  met  by  scriptural  statements  which  positively 
contradict  any  position  of  the  system  which  is  assumed  as  approx- 
imating to  the  truth,  the  consequence  will  be  a  doubt,  or  an  aban- 
donment of  the  system  itself.  Precisely  in  this  way  every  inde- 
pendent thinker  knows  that  he  has  been  affected  by  the  difficulties 
of  Scripture.  The  case  would  not  be  rendered  more  favourable 
if  he  had  in  his  hand  no  system.  As  it  is  manifestly  impossible 
for  any  one  to  come  to  the  study  of  the  Word  of  God  without 
entertaining  some  general  scheme  of  divine  truth  as  substantially 
correct,  we  can  see  no  reason  why  the  student  should  not  avail  him- 


SYSTEMS    OF    THEOLOGY.  43 

self  of  that  which  he  esteems  true  in  its  great  outline.  It  will  be 
no  bar  to  just  inquiry  that  he  is  hereby  prevented  from  hastily 
catching  at  specious  error,  by  perceiving  that  it  varies  from  his 
guide.  Life  is  too  short  for  every  man  to  be  left  to  the  hazard  of 
running  through  the  whole  cycle  of  errors  and  heresies  before  he 
arrives  at  the  truth  ;  and  this  is  prevented  only  by  presenting  to  the 
learner  some  beacon  against  seductive  falsehoods.  He  may,  as 
many  have  done,  conclude,  upon  due  inquiry,  that  his  own  impres- 
sions are  right,  and  his  system  wrong. 

We  have  compared  the  theological  system  to  the  hypothesis  by 
which  the  natural  philosopher  directs  his  inquiries.  The  compari- 
son is  good  for  the  present  instance.  The  system,  like  the  hypo- 
thesis, is  not  unalterable.  It  is  to  be  studiously  scrutinized,  and 
even  suspected  ;  adopted  if  verified,  and  rejected  if  proved  to  be 
false.  There  is  a  well-known  process  by  which  natural  philoso- 
phers arrive  at  the  primary  physical  laws,  viz.  "  by  assuming  in- 
deed the  laws  we  would  discover,  but  so  generally  expressed,  tnat 
they  shall  include  an  unlimited  variety  of  particular  laws  ;  follow- 
ing out  the  consequences  of  this  assumption,  by  the  application  of 
such  general  principles  as  the  case  admits  ;  comparing  them  in 
succession  with  all  the  particular  cases  within  our  knowledge  ;  and 
lastly,  071  this  comparison,  so  modifying  and  restricting  the  general 
enunciation  of  our  laws  as  to  make  the  results  agreed*  Analogous 
to  this  is  the  process  according  to  which,  by  the  hypothetical  as- 
sumption of  a  given  system,  we  proceed  to  determine  upon  its 
truth. 

But  we  are  here  arrested  by  an  objection  urged  against  this 
whole  method  of  proceeding,  which  comes  in  a  specious  shape, 
and  with  the  air  of  sincerity,  and  therefore  demands  a  serious  ex- 
amination. We  are  addressed  in  some  such  terms  as  these:  "The 
whole  method  of  investigating  theological  truth  by  the  advocates  of 
systems  is  erroneous,  because  it  is  diametrically  opposed  to  the 
principles  of  the  inductive  philosophy.  Instead  of  framing  a  system 
d  priori,  and  making  it  a  bed  of  Procrustes,  to  which  every  decla- 
ration of  the  Bible  is  to  be  forcibly  adapted,  the  only  safe  method 
is  to  reject  all  the  hypotheses  of  divines,  to  come  to  the  examina- 
tion divested  of  all  preconceived  opinions,  to  consider  the  scattered 
revelations  of  Scripture  as  so  many  phenomena,  and  to  classify, 
generalize,  and  deduce  from  these  phenomena  ;  just  as  the  astrono- 
mer or  the  botanist  uses  physical  data  in  framing  a  sound  hypothe- 
sis. The  study  of  theology  should  be  exegetical,  and  the  obsolete 
classifications  of  past  ages  should  be  entirely  laid  aside."  We 
have  endeavoured  to  state  the  objection  fairly  and  strongly,  and 
we  shall  now  inquire  how  far  it  operates  against  the  positions 
which  we  have  taken.  The  objection  assumes  an  analogy  between 
theological  investigation  of  revealed  truth  and  physical  inquiry 
into  the  system  of  the  universe.     This  analogy  we  have  already 

*  Herschell's  Discourse,  §  210. 


44  SYSTEMS    OF    THEOLOGY. 

noticed,  and  in  reply  to  so  much  of  the  objection  as  concerns  the 
original  investigation  of  divine  truth,  we  grant  that  nothing  can  be 
more  unphilosophical  or  untheological  than  to  receive  any  system 
as  true,  previously  to  examination,  how^ever  it  may  have  been  sup- 
ported by  consent  of  antiquity  or  w^ideness  of  diffusion.  This 
were  to  forsake  the  great  principles  of  the  Reformation,  and  revert 
to  the  implicit  faith  of  the  apostate  Church.  We  ask  no  conces- 
sion of  private  judgment  on  the  part  of  the  learner  ;  we  acknow- 
ledge that  the  final  appeal  is,  in  every  instance,  to  the  Scriptures 
themselves.  We  go  further  in  meeting  those  who  differ  from  us, 
and  accept  their  illustration.  Let  the  Scriptures  be  considered  as 
analogous  to  the  visible  universe  ;  and  its  several  propositions  as 
holding  the  same  place  with  regard  to  the  interpreter,  which  the 
phenomena  of  the  heavens  do  with  regard  to  the  astronomer.  Let 
it  be  agreed  that  the  method  of  arriving  at  truth  is  in  both  instances 
the  same,  that  is,  by  careful  examination  of  these  data,  from  which 
result  generalization,  cautious  induction,  and  the  position  of  ultimate 
principles.  Let  it  be  further  conceded  that  exegesis  answers  to 
experiment  or  observation  in  the  natural  world,  and  consequently 
that  the  theologian  is  to  consider  exegetical  results  as  the  basis  of 
all  his  reasonings.  In  all  this  there  is  not  so  wide  a  separation 
between  us  as  might  at  first  appear.  We  avow  our  belief  that 
the  theologian  should  proceed  in  his  investigation  precisely  as  the 
chemist  or  the  botanist  proceeds.  "  The  botanist  does  not  shape 
his  facts,"  says  a  late  ingenious  writer.  Granted,  provided  that 
you  mean  that  the  botanist  does  not  wi-est  his  facts  to  a  forced  cor- 
respondence with  a  hypothesis.  Neither  does  the  genuine  theolo- 
gian "  shape  his  texts  "  nor  constrain  them  to  an  agreement  with 
his  system.  But  both  the  botanist  and  the  theologian  do  in  this 
sense  "  shape  their  facts,"  that  they  classify  and  arrange  the  fruits 
of  their  observation,  and  gather  from  them  new  proofs  of  that 
general  system  which  has  previously  commended  itself  to  their 
faith. 

There  is  an  entire  agreement  between  the  contending  parties,  as 
to  the  independent  principles  upon  which  original  investigation  for 
the  discovery  of  truth  is  to  be  conducted  in  every  science.  It  is 
the  method  which  bears  the  name  of  Bacon,  though  practised 
to  a  limited  extent,  by  the  wise  of  every  age.  It  is  the  method  of 
Newton,  which  in  his  case  resulted  in  the  most  splendid  series  of 
demonstration  which  the  world  has  ever  known.  Up  to  this  point 
we  agree,  yet  we  have  left  the  main  question  still  untouched — 
whether  in  pursuing  this  method  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  reject 
all  the  results  of  precedent  labours.  It  is  not  merely  concerning 
the  way  in  which  original  investigation  should  be  pursued,  but  also 
the  way  in  which  the  results  of  such  investigation  are  to  be  com- 
municated. The  former  would  be  the  inquiry  how  to  make  a 
system — how  to  deduce  it  from  its  original  disjected  elements  ;  the 
latter  is  the  inquiry  how  the  general  truths  thus  deduced  may 
be  made  available  to  the  benefit  of  the  learner.     Systems  of  theo- 


SYSTEMS    OF    THEOLOGY.  45 

logy  are  in  their  nature  synthetical.  They  are  the  results  of  the 
toilsome  analysis  of  great  minds,  and  they  are  to  be  put  to  the  test 
by  a  comparison  of  all  the  separate  truths,  of  which  they  purport 
to  be  a  scientific  arrangement.  That  they  are  convenient  helps, 
in  the  transmission  of  such  results  as  have  been  attained  by  the 
wisdom  and  diligence  of  our  predecessors — results  which  else 
would  have  perished  with  their  discoverers — is  made  evident  by 
reference  to  the  very  analogy  above  stated.  In  every  science,  it  is  by 
such  synthetical  arrangements  that  the  observations  and  inductions 
of  philosophers  are  embodied,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  advance  of 
those  who  follow.  Thus,  for  instance,  when  the  Abbe  Haiiy,  by  a 
tedious  and  laborious  induction  of  particulars,  had  traced  up  the 
apparently  amorphous  crystals  of  the  mineral  kingdom  to  certain 
clear  and  primitive  figures,  he  reduced  the  whole  of  his  discoveries 
to  the  form  of  a  system,  so  that  future  crystallographers  might  with 
less  toil  follow  out  his  inquiries,  and  with  immense  advantage  take 
up  the  subject  where  he  left  it. 

But  lest  we  should  be  suspected  of  the  slightest  misrepresentation 
or  evasion  of  the  argument,  let  it  be  supposed  that  the  gist  of  the 
objection  is,  not  that  systems  are  useless,  but  that  they  should  not 
be  put  into  the  hands  of  learners,  lest  they  fill  their  minds  with 
doctrines  unproved  and  unexamined,  and  close  the  door  against 
manly  and  independent  inquiry.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  lay  one 
shackle  upon  the  chartered  freedom  of  the  theologian !  We 
would  that  there  were  a  thousandfold  more  independence  in  the 
search  of  truth — and  that  so  many  hundreds  were  not  enslaved  by 
the  prejudice  of  novelty,  whilst  they  clamour  against  the  prejudice 
of  authority  and  antiquity.  To  the  objection,  under  this  new  phase, 
we  reply ;  the  only  possible  method  of  making  the  labours  of  past 
theologians  available  and  profitable  to  the  tyro,  is  by  presenting  to 
him  the  fruits  of  these  labours  in  some  compendious  form.  In  every 
other  case,  the  learner  is  despoiled  of  all  the  aids  afforded  by  su- 
perior wisdom  and  learning,  and  reduced  to  the  condition  of  one 
who  has  to  build  the  whole  structure  for  himself  from  the  very 
foundation.  But  it  is  rejoined,  "  The  Bible  is  the  text-book : 
Theology  is  to  be  pursued  exegetically  ;  let  the  student,  with  his 
hermeneutical  apparatus,  come  to  the  investigation  of  the  Bible 
itself,  to  the  neglect  of  all  systems  of  human  composition."  Again 
we  reply,  that  in  correspondence  with  the  analogy  above  suggest- 
ed, exegesis  is  the  true  instrument  of  discovery,  and  the  test  of  all 
pretended  results.  It  may  be  compared  to  the  glasses  and  qua- 
drant of  the  astronomer.  But  is  this  all  that  is  aflforded  to  the 
inchoate  astronomer  ?  Let  the  analogy  be  pursued.  We  suppose 
a  professor  in  this  new  school  of  physics  to  say  to  his  pupil,  "  Here 
are  your  telescopes  and  other  instruments,  your  logarithmic  tables 
and  ephemeris — yonder  is  the  observatory.  Proceed  to  make  your 
observations.  Be  independent  and  original  in  your  inquiries,  and 
cautious  in  your  inductions.  You  are  not  to  be  informed  whether  the 
sun  moves  around  the  earth,  or  the  earth  around  the  sun.     This 


46  SYSTEMS    OF    THEOLOGY. 

would  be  to  prepossess  you  in  favour  of  a  system.  Ptolemy  and 
Copernicus  are  alike  to  be  forgotten !"  What  is  our  estimate  of 
such  a  method  of  philosophizing  ?  The  unfortunate  youth  is  not 
permitted  to  take  a  glance  at  Newton's  Principia,  lest  his  mind 
should  librate  from  its  exact  poise,  towards  some  preconceived 
opinion.  He  is  reduced  to  the  very  condition  of  the  thousands 
who  grope  in  disastrous  twilight  for  want  of  direction.  He  is 
called  upon  to  be  a  Galileo  without  his  powers,  or  a  Kepler  without 
his  previous  training. 

To  an  unprejudiced  mind  it  must  commend  itself  as  reason- 
able, thai  the  beginner  in  any  science  should  be  furnished  at 
least  with  some  syllabus  of  its  details,  which  may  serve  as  a  clew 
in  the  labyrinth  of  his  doubts.  In  order  to  discover  truth,  it  is  not 
the  safest  nor  the  wisest  plan  to  reduce  the  mind  to  the  unenviable 
condition  of  a  tabula  rasa ;  although  such  is  the  assumption  of 
certain  modern  writers.  It  is  highly  useful  to  be  informed  as  well 
of  what  has  been  held  to  be  true,  as  of  what  has  been  proved  to 
be  false.  For  lack  of  the  latter  knowledge — the  knowledge  of  pre- 
ceding errors — our  improved  theologians  are  daily  venting,  with 
all  the  grave  self-consequence  of  discovery,  the  stale  and  exploded 
blunders  of  the  dark  ages  ;  which  the  perusal  of  any  single  work 
of  systematic  divinity  would  have  taught  them  to  despise.  The 
impartiality  of  the  mind  is  in  no  degree  secured  by  the  banishment 
of  all  previous  hypothesis.  There  is  a  partiality  of  ignorance,  a 
partiality  of  self-will  and  intellectual  pride,  a  partiality  of  innova- 
tion, no  less  dangerous  than  the  predilections  of  system.  Or,  to 
bring  the  whole  matter  to  a  speedier  issue,  the  condition  of  mind 
in  equilibrio,  which  it  is  proposed  to  secure,  is  utterly  impossible — 
the  merest  ens  rationis — which  was  never  realized,  and  never  can 
be  reaUzed  by  any  one  in  a  Christian  country.  It  is  like  the  chi- 
merical scepticism  of  the  Cartesians,  the  creature  of  an  overheated 
imagination.  For  when  you  have  carefully  withheld  all  orthodox 
systems  of  theology  from  your  pupil,  he  comes  to  the  study  of  the 
Scriptures,  emptied  indeed  of  all  coherent  hypotheses,  but  teeming 
with  the  crude  and  erroneous  views  which  spring  up  like  weeds  in 
the  unregulated  mind. 

The  true  light  in  which  a  system  of  theology  should  be  viewed 
by  one  who  uses  it  as  an  aid  in  scriptural  study,  is  as  a  simple 
hypothesis,  an  approximation  to  the  truth,  and  a  directory  for 
future  inquiries.  Every  position  is  to  become  the  subject  of  a 
sifting  examination,  and  comparison  with  what  is  revealed.  With- 
out some  such  assistance,  in  the  mind  or  in  writing,  the  student 
might  spend  a  life-time  in  arriving  at  some  of  those  principles, 
which,  if  once  proposed  to  him,  would  commend  themselves  in- 
stantly to  his  approbation. 

But  it  is  queried  :  "  What  if  your  system  should  be  false  ?"  Let 
us  then  go  so  far  as  to  suppose  that  it  is  false.  It  would  be  no 
very  difficult  task  to  prove  that,  for  this  purpose,  even  a  false  sys- 
tem, if  scientifically  arranged,  might  not  be  without  its  uses.    Every 


SYSTEMS    OF    THEOLOGY.  47 

one  who  commences  the  study  of  the  Scriptures,  does  so  with  some 
system,  true  or  false,  symmetrical  or  crude,  written  or  conceived. 
If  he  is  influenced  by  no  living  idols  in  the  world  of  theologians, 
and  bows  to  no  Calvin  or  Arminius,  he  has  within  him  those 
causes  of  error  which  spring  from  his  own  character  and  educa- 
tion ;  or,  to  use  Bacon's  expressive  terms,  idola  specus  et  fori,  if 
not  idola  theatri.*  When  Kepler  began  his  observations,  he  no 
doubt  held  the  old  erroneous  doctrine  of  the  sphere  ;  but  in  the 
progress  of  inquiry  he  discovered  such  irregularity  in  the  orbit  of 
Mars,  as  was  altogether  incompatible  with  a  circular  motion. 
Hence  he  arrived  at  the  truth  that  all  the  planetary  orbits  are  ellip- 
tical. In  this  we  have  an  example  of  a  fact  impinging  upon  a  sys- 
tem, and  causing  it  to  be  abandoned.  The  same  thing  may  be  in- 
stanced in  the  case  of  Martin  Luther.  It  may  not  be  too  much  to 
say,  that  if  they  had  been  ignorant  of  the  opinions  of  their  fathers, 
and  had  practised  upon  the  rule  above-mentioned,  their  names 
would  never  have  come  down  to  us.  But  all  this  is  gratuitous. 
We  are  not  bound  to  prove  that  an  erroneous  system  may  have 
its  uses.  We  put  into  the  hand  of  the  pupil  the  nearest  approxi- 
mation to  truth  which  we  can  procure,  even  that  which  we  cordi- 
ally believe  ourselves  ;  and  then,  to  add  new  guards  to  the  mind, 
we  exhort  him  to  use  it  simply  as  a  history  of  what  the  Church 
has  held  ;  leaving  it  to  his  judgment  whether  it  is  consistent  with 
the  Scriptures.  It  is  the  method  in  which  the  study  of  all  sciences 
must  be  begun  ;  and  as  all  lectures  in  theology  are  systems — in- 
deed no  other  systems  are  enjoined  to  be  studied  in  our  seminaries 
— it  is  in  accordance  with  this  very  method  that  candidates  for  the 
ministry  are  everywhere  instructed.  There  may  be  a  time,  at 
some  later  period,  when  a  method  purely  analytic  may  be  at- 
tempted ;  but  no  man  is  competent  to  institute  such  an  analysis, 
until  he  has  mastered  the  leading  hypotheses  of  those  who  have 
gone  before  him  :  and  about  one  theologian  in  a  thousand  has  the 
taste  for  investigations  of  this  kind. 

It  is  not  a  little  surprising  that  the  very  persons  whose  delicate 
susceptibilities  lead  them  to  shrink  from  the  contact  of  an  orthodox 
system  or  exposition,  lest  they  should  receive  some  undue  bias,  are 
at  the  same  time  under  no  apprehensions  from  the  contagion  of 
German  neology.  There  are,  for  instance,  ministers  of  our  ac- 
quaintance who  avowedly  banish  from  their  shelves  the  works  of 
Turretine,  Scott,  ajid  Henry,  but  who  daily  refer  to  the  innocuous 
commentaries  of  Rosenmueller,  Kuinol,  Koppe,  and  Gcscnius.  Is 
it  so  then,  that  the  only  partialities  against  which  we  need  a  cau- 
tion, are  towards  what  is  called  orthodoxy — the  system  of  doc- 
trines to  which  we  have  subscribed  ;  Are  there  no  vicious  leanings 
of  the  mind  in  favour  of  plausible  heresies,  lofty  rationalism,  or 
imposing  novelty  ?  Let  him  answer  who  has  learned  the  deceit- 
fulness  of  the  human  heart. 

•  Nov.  Org.,  lib  i.,  aph.  41. 


48  SYSTEMS    OP    THEOLOGY. 

If  systems  of  theology  are  assailed  upon  the  ground  that  they 
have  usurped  the  place  and  authority  of  the  sacred  canon,  we 
leave  our  opponents  to  try  the  issue  with  those  who  are  guilty  of 
the  offence.  We  are  conscious  of  no  such  wish.  The  formularies 
of  our  Church  have  borne  many  violent  assaults  ;  and  in  their 
turn  all  doctrinal  works  which  coincide  with  them  have  been  de- 
nounced. We  have  no  hesitation  in  "  postponing  the  Confession 
of  Faith  to  the  Holy  Scriptures."*  If  systems  of  divinity  have 
been  raised  to  a  co-ordinate  rank  with  the  Word  of  God,  let  those 
answer  for  it  who  are  guilty  of  the  impiety.  The  books  them- 
selves are  chargeable  with  no  part  of  it,  since  they  unanimously 
declare  that  the  Bible  only  is  the  standard  of  faith.  *  Yet  shall  we 
deny  to  any  the  liberty  of  making  any  scheme  of  doctrine  his  own 
confession  of  faith  ?  No  constraint  has  been  used  to  bring  any 
man  to  such  a  declaration ;  nor  have  we  heard  of  any  man  who 
has  been  required  to  conform  himself  to  such  a  system,  unless  he 
had  previously,  of  his  own  free  will,  confessed  it  to  be  a  statement 
of  his  faith.  We  may,  therefore,  dismiss  the  cavil,  as  scarcely 
pertaining  to  this  inquiry. 

In  view  of  the  absolute  impracticability  of  the  visionary  scheme 
now  controverted,  and  the  absence  of  any  attempted  exemplifica- 
tion of  it,  we  are  constrained  to  look  somewhat  further  for  the  se- 
cret cause  of  the  clamour  against  systematic  theology.  And 
when  we  regard  the  quarter  from  which  it  issues,  we  are  con- 
vinced that  the  real  objection  is,  not  that  systems  are  exceptionable 
qua  tales,  but  that  doctrine  is  systematized  on  the  wrong  side. 
Systematized  heterodoxy  is  attacked  upon  its  own  merits  ;  syste- 
matized orthodoxy  is  opposed, because  of  its  form  and  arrange- 
ments. The  great  standard  works  in  this  department  are  the  re- 
sults of  labour,  the  monuments  of  tried  doctrine  ;  while  the  ephe- 
meral fabrics  of  innovators  do  not  live  long  enough  to  assume  a 
regular  shape.  Hinc  illce  lachrymcB  I  When  the  late  Robert 
Hall  was  arraigned  by  a  certain  loyalist,  as  having  written  in  fa- 
vour of  parliamentary  reform,  he  replied,  in  terms  not  inapplicable 
to  this  subject :  "  The  plain  state  of  the  case  is,  not  that  the  writer 
is  offended  at  my  meddling  with  politics,  but  that  I  have  meddled 
on  the  wrong  side.  Had  the  same  mediocrity  of  talent  been  ex- 
erted in  eulogizing  the  measures  of  ministry,  his  greetings  would 
have  been  as  loud  as  his  invective  is  bitter."  If  the  system  is 
false,  let  this  be  made  to  appear,  let  its  errors  be  exposed,  but, 
until  this  is  done,  let  no  arrangement  of  divine  truth  be  decried  as 
injurious.  In  conclusion,  we  apprehend  no  evils  to  our  rising  the- 
ologians from  scholastic  systems,  for  the  best  of  all  reasons — they 
know  nothing  of  them.  The  literature  of  the  day  has  extended 
its  influence  to  the  domain  of  theology,  and  the  weekly,  monthly, 
and  quarterly  receptacles  of  religious  discussion  consume  too  much 
of  our  attention  to  leave  opportunity  for  poring  over  the  works  of 
our  ancestors. 

*  See  Rev.  E.  Irving's  late  Letter  in  Frazer's  Magazine. 


ESSAY    IV. 


ON  THE  ATONEMENT.^ 


We  are  pleased  with  this  volume  on  the  Atonement,  because 
such  a  work  on  this  cardinal  subject  was  needed  ;  and  because 
we  are  of  opinion  that  the  author  has  exhibited  the  true  Calvinistic 
view  of  the  atonement,  as  to  its  necessity,  nature,  and  extent. 
This  work  is  more  comprehensive  than  any  work  on  this  subject 
with  which  we  are  acquainted  ;  it  embraces  every  point  which  it 
is  proper  to  have  discussed  in  a  popular  treatise.  We  consider  it 
also  a  high  recommendation  that  it  is  not  written  in  a  controversial 
spirit.  The  author  attacks  no  one,  but  goes  straight  forward  to 
his  object.  The  style  is  characterized  by  vivacity  and  perspicuity. 
It  would  be  difficult  to  find  an  involved  or  obscure  sentence  in  the 
whole  book.  On  every  point  the  discussion  is  as  concise  as  most 
readers  will  desire,  and  in  our  opinion  is  conducted  with  admirable 
judgment  and  good  temper.  Where  the  reader  may  differ  from 
the  sentiments  of  the  author,  he  will  never  have  occasion  to  cen- 
sure him  as  deficient  in  Christian  candour. 

Mr.  Symington's  plan  is  also  very  judicious.  He  begins  by  an 
explication  of  the  principal  terms  which  relate  to  this  subject.  He 
then  undertakes  to  answer  the  most  common  and  popular  objections 
to  the"  doctrine.  This  part  of  his  work  is  executed  with  great 
clearness  and  force.  Nothing  seems  to  be  omitted  which  is  proper 
to  be  said,  and  yet  these  objections  are  answered  within  a  very 
moderate  space.  The  necessity  of  an  atonement  comes  next  in 
order ;  and  this  he  argues  logically  and  conclusively,  from  the  per- 
fections OF  God — FROM    the    nature  op   moral   government — 

FROM  THE  INEFFICACY  OF  OTHER  MEANS  TO  OBTAIN  PARDON- — AND 
FROM    THE    EXPRESS    TESTIMONY    OF     SCRIPTURE.       Thc    prOOf    of    the 

reality  of  the  atonement  is  next  exhibited.  Under  this  head  he 
avails  himself  of  the  ancient  sacrifices,  and  particularly  of  those 
which  were  appointed  in  the  Levitical  law.  On  this  interesting 
subject  he  furnishes  the  reader  with  a  condensed  view  of  all  that 
is  most  important  in  the  popular  works  of  Magee  and  John  Pye 

*  Originally  published  in  1S36,  in  review  of  the  following  work  :  «'  On  the  Atone- 
ment and  Intercession  of  Jesus  Christ."    By  the  Rev,  William  Symington. 

4 


50  ON   THE    ATONEMENT. 

Smith.  He  then  considers  the  atonement  as  exhibited  in  prophecy : 
especially  in  the  remarkable  predictions  of  Isaiah  and  Daniel,  con- 
cerning the  vicarious  sufferings  and  death  of  the  Messiah. 

The  author  now  comes  *to  the  consideration  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  as  the  facts  are  recorded  by  the  Evangelists  ;  and  considers 
the  several  conceivable  ends  of  these  extraordinary  sufferings,  and 
shows  that  none  of  these  could  have  been  the  principal  end,  but  that 
of  making  an  atonement.  The  principal  passages  of  scripture 
which  speak  of  atonement,  reconciliation,  redemption,  &c.,  are  taken 
up  and  considered. 

The  matter  of  the  atonement  is  now  more  particularly  brought 
into  view,  where  the  expiatory  sufferings  of  Christ  are  described. 
The  value  of  the  atonement  is  evinced  from  a  consideration  of  the 
DIGNITY  OF  Christ's  person — from    his    relationship    to  man — 

FROM  HIS  freedom  FROM  ALL  PERSONAL  OBLIGATION  TO  THE  LAW 
FROM  HIS  RIGHT  TO  DISPOSE  OF  HIMSELF FROM  THE  VOLUNTA- 
RINESS   OF    HIS    OFFERING AND     FROM     ITS     BEING     MADE     ACCORDING 

TO    THE    APPOINTMENT    OF    GoD.       The  VCXCd  SubjCCt  of   the  EXTENT 

of  the  atonement  is  not  omitted  by  our  author.  On  this  point  he 
takes  middle  ground  between  the  schemes  of  those  who  represent 
the  atonement  as  indefinite  and  universal,  and  those  who  make  it 
so  limited  as  to  be  sufficient  only  for  the  salvation  of  the  elect.  He 
admits  and  maintains  that  the  atonement,  as  to  its  intrinsic  merit, 
is  infinite  ;  while,  in  its  application,  it  is  limited  to  the  elect.  The 
true  point  of  dispute  is  not  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  atonement,  but 
the  design  with  which  it  was  offered  :  and  where  the  parties 
agree  in  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  election,  we  do  not  see  much 
room  for  dissension  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  atonement. 
Both  parties  consider  it  as  a  sufficient  ground  of  a  universal  offer 
of  Christ  to  all  who  are  willing  to  receive  him.  The  author  main- 
tains the  definite  character  of  the  atonement,  and  its  limitation  to 
the  elect  in  its  design,  with  great  force  of  argument,  from   the 

DIVINE    PURPOSE FROM    THE    RECTITUDE    OF  GoD FROM  THE  NATURE 

OF    THE    COVENANT    OF    GRACE FROM     THE     VERY     NATURE      OF     THE 

ATONEMENT FROM    THE    RESURRECTION  AND  INTERCESSION  OF  CHRIST 

FROM  THE  WORK  OF  THE  SPIRIT FROM  THE  LIMITED  APPLICA- 
TION    AND     REVELATION     OF     THE     ATONEMENT FROM     THE     ABSURD 

CONSEaUENCS    OF    THE    CONTRARY     SUPPOSITION AND      FROM    EXPRESS 

TESTIMONIES  OF  SCRIPTURE.  Hc  thcn  cousidcrs  and  answers  the 
objections  to  this  opinion,  derived  from  its  being  derogatory  to  the 
honour  of  the  Saviour — from  its  supposing  a  redundancy  of  merit 
— from  the  universal  offer  of  the  gospel — from  universal  terms 
used  in  scripture — and  from  the  possibility  of  some  perishing  for 
whom  Christ  died. 

Whether  on  this  much  disputed  point  the  arguments  in  favour  of 
a  definite  or  general  atonement  preponderate,  will  be  differently 
decided  by  readers  according  to  their  respective  prepossessions. 
But  for  ourselves,  we  are  of  opinion  that  the  author  has  placed  the 
subject  on  the  old  Calvinistic  ground,  ^s  particular  redemption  is 


ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  -fil 

known  to  have  been  one  of  the  doctrines  in  which  almost  all  old 
Calvinists  were  agreed,  and  was  one  of  the  jive  points  disputed 
between  the  Calvinists  and  Arminians,  and  decided  in  the  Synod  of 
Dort.  It  may,  however,  be  admitted,  that  where  there  is  an 
agreement  respecting  the  vicarious  nature  of  the  atonement,  and 
in  the  belief  of  the  doctrine  of  election,  the  controversy  must  be 
rather  verbal  than  real ;  for  both  sides  hold  the  intrinsic  sufficiency 
of  the  atonement,  and  both  maintain  that  it  was  the  design  of  the 
Father  in  giving  his  Son,  and  the  design  of  the  Son  in  dying,  to 
save  only  those  chosen  in  him  before  the  world  was.  Wherein 
then  is  the  difference,  except  in  the  proper  mode  of  expressing  our 
views?  But  we  can  see  no  advantage  from  representing  the 
atonement  to  be  universal ;  and  when  it  is  said  to  have  been  made 
as  much  for  one  man  as  another,  the  language  is  certainly  incon- 
sistent with  the  other  parts  of  the  Calvinistic  system,  and  furnishes 
strong  ground  on  which  both  Arminians  and  Universalists  can 
erect  their  batteries  to  subvert  it. 

After  discussing  the  extent  of  the  atonement  pretty  fully,  Mr. 
Symington  devotes  one  section  to  the  consideration  of  its  results, 
which  he  makes  to  be  the  following  :  it  illustrates  the  charac- 
ter   OF    God VINDICATES    HIS    MORAL  GOVERNMENT DEMONSTRATES 

THE  EVIL  OF  SIN SECURES  FOR  ITS  OBJECTS  PERFECT  AND  ETER- 
NAL     SALVATION OPENS     A        WAY     FOR      THE     EXERCISE     OF    DIVINE 

MERCY,    AND    ENCOURAGES    SINNERS  TO    RELY  ON    THE  MERCY    OF    GoD, 

AND    AWAKENS    GRATEFUL     EMOTIONS     IN     THE     PIOUS AFFECTS    THE 

DIVINE    DISPENSATIONS    TO    OUR    WORLD aad  FURNISHES  AN    ETERNAL 

THEME  OF  CONTEMPLATION  TO  THE  WHOLE  UNIVERSE  OF  MORAL 
CREATURES. 

This  concludes  what  strictly  belongs  to  the  atonement,  but  the 
author  has  very  judiciously  annexed  a  Second  Part,  containing  the 
fullest  and  ablest  view  of  the  Intercession  of  Christ  which  we  have 
seen.  Indeed  the  subject  of  Christ's  intercession  cannot  be  sepa- 
rated from  his  atonement ;  for  while  the  latter  may  be  represented 
by  the  slaying  of  the  sacrifice  and  laying  it  on  the  altar,  the  former 
is  strikingly  typified  by  the  presentation  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  the  sin-offering  in  the  most  Holy  Place,  accompanied  with 
clouds  of  precious  incense.  The  offering  of  Christ's  body  on  the 
cross  would  have  accomplished  nothing,  unless  he  had  entered  with 
his  precious  merit  into  the  highest  heavens,  there  to  plead  the  cause 
of  his  people.  We  would  particularly  recommend  this  part  of  the 
work  to  the  attentive  perusal  of  the  pious ;  it  cannot  be  read, 
we  think,  without  pleasure  and  profit  by  any  sincere  Chris- 
tian. The  topics  which  are  introduced  under  this  head  are  such 
as  these ;  the  Intercession  of  Christ  displays  the  love  of  God,  and 
proves  the  Divinity  of  Christ — shows  the  efficacy  of  his  death — 
affords  security  to  the  people  of  God.  The  discourse  is  concluded 
by  considering  the  sin  of  dishonouring  Christ's  intercession,  and 
the  duty  of  daily  seeking  an  interest  in  it. 

It  is  gratifying  to  learn  that  the  first  edition  of  this  work  was  all 


52  ON  THE   ATONEMENT. 

sold  in  a  few  days,  and  a  second  edition  called  for  before  the 
author  had  the  opportunity  of  revising  the  work,  or  availing  him- 
self of  the  remarks  of  the  reviewers.  He  promises,  however,  "if 
a  third  edition  be  required,  to  supply  this  deficiency."  The  Chris- 
tian  Instructor  of  Edinburgh,  which  has  always  been  ably  con- 
ducted, and  uniformly  appears  on  the  side  of  orthodoxy  and  evan- 
gelical piety,  speaks  of  this  work  in  the  following  terms :  "  Mr.  S. 
has  accomplished  his  work  in  the  happiest  possible  manner.  We 
have  not  often  read  a  work  which  does  more  credit  to  its  author, 
or  is  better  fitted  to  edify  the  Church  of  God.  The  divine  and  the 
private  Christian  will  alike  find  their  account  in  giving  it  a  careful 
perusal,  and  we  are  mistaken  if  there  be  many  of  its  readers  who 
will  be  satisfied  with  perusing  it  only  once."  The  work  is  also 
highly  commended  in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  published  in 
Edinburgh. 

To  account  for  the  avidity  with  which  this  volume  was  bought 
up  in  Scotland,  it  will  be  necessary  to  advert  to  the  circumstance, 
that  the  Christian  public  there  has  been  considerably  agitated  with 
the  publication  of  new  and  dangerous  doctrines  on  the  subject  of 
the  atonement.  It  will  be  recollected  that  Thomas  Erskine,  Esq., 
who  had  acquired  considerable  reputation  as  a  theological  writer, 
by  his  work  on  the  Internal  Evidences  of  Christianity,  pub- 
lished a  little  work  on  the  atonemevt,  in  which  he  maintained 
not  only  the  universality  of  the  atonement,  but  its  universal 
efficacy  in  bringing  the  whole  human  race  into  a  justified  state. 
In  connexion  with  this  he  taught  that  the  glad  tidings  of  the  gospel 
was  the  annunciation  of  this  fact,  and  that  saving  faith  consisted  in 
a  full  persuasion  that  we  are  already  in  a  justified  state ;  and  that 
the  condemnation  of  any  would  be  for  refusing  to  believe  this 
merciful  testimony  of  God.  This  antinomian  work  of  Erskine  was 
mixed  up  with  much  that  was  good  and  pious  ;  and  the  author  and 
his  followers  insisted  that  nothing  so  much  promoted  personal 
holiness  as  the  persuasion  above  mentioned ;  and  this  they  declared 
to  be  the  eflfect  of  the  doctrine  on  their  own  minds.  Several  able 
answers  were  returned  to  this  publication.  Dr.  Wardlaw,  so 
favourably  and  extensively  known  as  a  theological  writer,  took  up 
his  pen  to  counteract  the  influence  of  this  pernicious  publication. 
His  little  work  has  been  republished  in  this  country.  Dr.  Dewar, 
principal  of  Mareschall  college,  Aberdeen,  also  published  a  work 
on  the  atonement  about  this  time.  This  subject  was  also  involved 
in  the  prosecution  carried  on  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland  against  Irving,  M'Clean,  Campbell,  &c.,  which 
resulted  in  their  deposition  from  the  sacred  ministry.  The  atten- 
tion of  theologians  in  that  country  was  therefore  turned  to  the 
subject  of  atonement ;  and  as  these  errorists  made  the  universality 
of  the  atonement  the  foundation  of  their  whole  system,  this  will 
show  why  the  point  has  received  so  large  a  share  of  attention  in 
the  treatise  now  under  review. 

In  this  country  discussions  on  the  atonement  have  taken  a  dif- 


ON    THE   ATONEMENT.  53 

ferent  turn ;  for  while  we  have  too  many  who  reject  the  whole 
doctrine  with  scorn,  we  have  also  a  large  number  who  have  adopt- 
ed a  new  theory  of  the  atonement,  which  they  persuade  them- 
selves avoids  the  most  prominent  difficulties  of  the  old  doctrine. 
We  propose,  therefore,  to  occupy  some  space  in  giving  our  own 
views  of  the  atonement  in  relation  to  the  existing  state  of  opinion 
in  this  country.  And  we  are  induced  to  undertake  this,  not  only 
because  the  subject  is  of  momentous  importance,  but  because  we 
have  never  given  our  views  at  large  on  this  subject  in  the  pages 
of  the  BibHcal  Repertory. 

It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  notice,  that  in  the  lapse  of  time  a  remark- 
able change  takes  place  in  the  language  of  theology,  without  an 
apparent  design  entertained  by  any  to  bring  it  about.  Words 
once  in  current  use  are  laid  aside,  and  new  terms  adopted  without 
any  important  reason  for  the  chang.e ;  and  without  anything  being 
gained  or  lost  by  the  substitution.  Of  this  a  more  striking  example 
cannot  be  given  than  in  the  word  atonement  to  express  the  expia- 
tion made  by  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ.  This  word  was 
much  used  by  the  translators  of  the  English  Bible  to  signify  the 
efficacy  of  the  sacrifices  and  other  rites  of  the  Levitical  service 
intended  to  purify  from  sin  and  ceremonial  defilement :  but  in  the 
New  Testament,  where  the  whole  work  of  Christ  is  fully  exhibited, 
the  word  is  but  once  read  (Rom.  v.,  11),  and  seems  to  be  there 
used  to  avoid  the  too  frequent  use  of  the  word  reconciliation^ 
which  would  certainly  have  been  the  appropriate  term  by  which 
to  render  the  Greek  word  KaraWayi,.  But  as  these  two  words  were 
then  used,  it  was  perfectly  indifferent  which  was  employed,  for 
they  were  considered  synonymous,  as  might  be  shown  by  a  refer- 
ence to  the  writers  of  that  period ;  and  as  appears,  indeed,  from 
the  derivation  of  the  word  atonement^  which  has  a  purely  English 
original,  and  signifies  to  be  at  one,  as  all  the  old  English  lexico- 
graphers inform  us.  For  those  who  have  been  at  variance  to  be  at 
one,  is  evidently  the  same  thing  as  to  be  reconciled.  But  as  in  the 
Old  Testament  the  Hebrew  word  1B3  is  almost  uniformly  rendered 
by  the  LXX.,  by  the  Greek  word  £|tXd<nfo/iai,  lUcKonai  or  lUonai^  and 
the  noun  by  i\aa^^hi,  which  words  are  in  English  constantly  trans- 
lated, to  make  atonement,  to  atone,  atonement,  this  analogy  should 
have  been  followed  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  then  we  should 
have  had  the  word  atonement  in  our  version,  not  where  the  word 
is  used  (Rom.  v.,  11),  but  in  1  John  ii.,  2,  where  we  have  KaihvTdi 
JXoff/idj  Ian  nepi  rCtv  anapn^v  ^/iwy;  and  he  is  the  atouemcnt  for  our  sins. 
And  in  1  John  iv.,  10,  where  we  read,  koi  diriareiXc  rdv  iidy  airov  iXavudv 
nepi  TUP  anapriwv  hfi^r ;  and  he  Sent  his  son  an  atonement  for  our  sins. 
We  find  the  Greek  verb  which  signifies  to  make  atonement,  in  the 

New     Testament,     Heb.    ii.,    17,   Us  rJ   IMaKcadai  ras  afiaprias  Tov  Xaoi»;      tO 

make  atonement  for  the  sins  of  the  people.  The  version  of  this  text 
furnishes  another  proof  that  atonement  and  reconciliation  were 
considered  synonymes  by  our  translators  ;  for  as  in  the  former  pas- 
sage they  used  atonement  instead  of  reconciliation,  here,  they  use 


54  ON   THE   ATONEMENT. 

reconciliation  where  atonement  was  the  proper  word.  The  word 
i\a<TT,',piov  is  also  twice  read  jn  the  New  Testament,  and  in  one  of 
these  (Rom.  iii.,  25)  should  be  translated  atonement,  Sv  TrpocOeTo  bOtds 
i\aa:T/ipiovy  whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  he  an  atonement.  In  the  other 
passage  (Heb.  ix.,  5)  this  word  retains  the  sense  in  which  it  is  uni- 
formly used  by  the  LXX.,  for  the  mercy-seat  or  cover  of  the  ark 
of  the  covenant,  and  would  be  well  rendered  by  the  word  propiti- 
atory, or  place  of  atonement. 

As  the  phrase  to  make  atonement,  as  the  translation  of  the  He- 
brew and  Greek  words  before  mentioned,  occurs  nearly  eighty 
times  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  may  aid  our  investigation  to  endea- 
vour to  ascertain  its  precise  meaning;  and  there  is  no  passage 
which  furnishes  us  with  a  better  opportunity  of  accomplishing  this 
object,  than  the  account  of  the  transactions  of  the  day  of  atonement 
which  is  recorded  in  the  16th  of  Leviticus.  It  has  frequently  been 
asserted  that  the  literal  radical  sense  of  the  Hebrew  verb  is  to  cover; 

^  but  as  the  word  is  seldom  used  in  a  literal  sense,  probably  but  once, 
where  Noah  is  commanded  to  pitch  the  ark  without  and  within 
with  pitch,  we  think  there  is  but  slight  ground  for  this  opinion.  In 
the  figurative  use  of  the  word,  though  often  thus  employed,  there 
is  no  clear  allusion  to  this  idea  of  covering.  If  we  might  infer  the 
literal  from  the  uniform  figurative  use,  we  should  say,  that  the 
radical  meaning  was  to  cleanse  or  io  purify.     It  appears  from  the 

,  passage  referred  to,  and  from  other  texts,  that  an  atonement, 
though  usually  made  with  blood,  consisted  sometimes  of  other 
things.  Thus  in  Exodus  xxx.,  15,  the  half  shekel  paid  by  every 
Israelite,  is  called  an  offering  unto  the  Lord  to  make  atonement  for 
your  souls.  And  in  Lev.  xvi.,  10,  the  scape-goat  is  called  an  atone- 
ment. But  the  goat  on  which  the  lot  fell  to  he  the  scape-goat  shall 
he  presented  alive  before  the  Lord  to  make  an  atonement  with  him, 
and  to  let  him  go  for  a  scape-goat  into  the  wilderness.  But  com- 
monly atonements  were  made  with  bloody  sacrifices ;  so  on  the 
day  when  the  scape-goat  was  made  an  atonement  by  symbolically 
carrying  oflf  the  sins  of  the  people  which  had  been  confessed  over 
his  head,  another  goat  and  a  bullock  were  sacrificed  as  sin-oflferings, 
the  one  for  the  whole  congregation,  the  other  for  the  priest  and  his 
family.  "  And  Aaron  shall  bring  the  bullock  of  the  sin-offering 
which  is  for  himself  and  his  house,  and  shall  make  atonement  for 
himself  and  for  his  house.  Then  shall  he  kill  the  goat  of  the  sin-of- 
^fering  that  is  for  the  people,  and  bring  his  blood  within  the  veil,  and 
do  with  that  blood  as  he  did  with  the  blood  of  the  bullock,  and  sprin- 
kle it  upon  the  mercy-seat,  and  before  the  mercy-seat,  and  he  shall 
make  an  atonement  for  the  Holy  Place,  because  of  the  uncleanness 
of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  because  of  their  transgressions  in  all 
their  sins.  And  there  shall  be  no  man  in  the  tabernacle  of  the  congre- 
gation, when  he  goeth  in  to  make  atonement  in  the  Holy  Place, 
until  he  come  out  and  have  made  an  atonement  for  himself  and 
his  household,  and  for  all  the  congregation  of  Israel.  And  he 
shall  go  in  before  the  altar  of  the  Lord,  and  make  an  atonement 


ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  55 

for  it  (or  on  it)  and  shall  take  of  the  blood  of  the  bullock  and  of 
the  blood  of  the  goat,  and  put  it  on  the  horns  of  the  altar  round 
about.  And  he  shall  sprinkle  of  the  blood  upon  it  with  his  finger 
seven  times,  and  cleanse  it  and  hallow  it  from  the  uncleanness  of 
the  children  of  Israel."  Here  we  have  as  distinct  a  view  as  could 
be  desired  of  the  nature  of  atonement  under  the  Mosaic  dispensa- 
tion ;  and  as  these  solemn  transactions  on  the  day  of  atonement 
are  in  a  very  eminent  degree  typical  of  the  great  sacrifice  of 
Christ,  the  atonements  of  this  day  will  aid  us  in  understanding  the 
true  nature  of  the  Christian  atonement.  That  the  solemn  rites  of 
this  day  were  typical  of  Christ,  we  are  not  only  informed,  but  the 
apostle  expounds  at  large  these  significant  ceremonies.  In  the  Uth 
chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  Paul  applies  the  type  to  the 
antitype.  "  The  priests  went  always  into  the  first  tabernacle  ac- 
complishing the  service  of  God.  But  into  the  second  went  the 
high  priest  alone,  every  year,  not  without  blood  which  he  oflfered 
for  himself  and  for  the  errors  of  the  people.  The  Holy  Ghost  this 
signifying,  that  the  way  into  the  holiest  of  all  was  not  yet  made 
manifest,  while  as  the  first  tabernacle  was  yet  standing,  which  was 
a  figure  for  the  time  then  present,  in  which  were  oflfered  both  gifts 
and  sacrifices  which  could  not  make  him  that  did  the  service  per- 
fect as  pertaining  to  the  conscience.  Which  stood  in  meats  and 
drinks  and  divers  washings,  and  carnal  ordinances  imposed  on  them 
until  the  time  of  the  reformation.  But  Christ  being  come  a  high 
priest  of  good  things,  by  a  more  perfect  tabernacle  not  made  with 
hands,  that  is  to  say,  not  of  this  building.  Neither  by  the  blood 
of  goats  and  calves,  but  by  his  own  blood  he  entered  in  once  into 
the  holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us.  For  if 
the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling 
the  unclean  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh,  how  much 
more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  Eternal  Spirit 
oflfered  himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge  your  souls  from  dead 
works  to  serve  the  living  God." 

From  this  inspired  exposition  of  the  sacrifices  and  ceremonies  of 
the  day  of  atonement,  we  learn  several  things,  as — 

1.  That  the  offerings  and  transactions  of  that  solemn  day  were 
indeed  typical  of  Christ  and  his  atoning  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of 
his  people.     They  are  called  a  figure  for  the  time  then  present. 

2.  That  the  sacrifices  so  solemnly  oflfered  under  the  law  had  in 
themselves  no  efliicacy  to  take  away  the  guilt  of  sin.  These  gifts 
and  offerings  could  not  make  him  that  did  the  sei^ice  perfect  as  per- 
taining to  the  conscience.  The  sprinkling  of  this  blood  of  bulls  and 
calves  could  only  sanctify  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh ;  but  had  no 
power  to  purge  the  conscience  from  dead  works.  For  it  is  not 
possible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  should  take  away  sin. 

3.  That  these  ceremonies,  called  here  carnal  ordinances,  were 
not  intended  to  be  perpetual  but  temporary,  imposed  until  the  time 
of  reformation ;  that  is,  until  the  introduction  of  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation. 


56  ON   THE   ATONEMENT. 

4.  That  the  tabernacle,  erected  by  Moses  according  to  the  pattern 
showed  him  in  the  holy  mount,  is  a  type  or  figure  of  that  heaven 
into  which  Christ  had  entered. 

5.  That  the  entrance  of  the  high  priest  once  in  the  year  into  the 
HOLY  OF  HOLIES,  with  the  blood  of  atonement,  was  a  lively  prefigu- 
ration  of  the  entrance  of  Christ  into  heaven  with  his  ow^n  blood, 
to  obtain  eternal  redemption  for  us. 

6.  That  Christ's  blood  and  offering  of  himself  through  the 
ETERNAL  SPIRIT  is  a  real  and  efficacious  atonement,  by  which  the 
conscience  is  purged  from  dead  works  ;  that  is  from  sin.  And  by 
this  one  offering,  he  perfects  for  ever  those  who  are  sanctified.  He 
who  appeared  in  the  end  of  the  world  has  put  away  sin  by  the 
sacrifice  of  himself. 

In  this  part  of  holy  scripture  we  have  a  clear  exhibition  of  the 
Christian  atonement.  It  is  a  sin-offering,  or  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  It 
is  a  vicarious  sacrifice  ;  for  as  the  sins  of  the  people  were  laid  both 
upon  the  scape-goat  who  bore  them  away,  and  upon  the  goat  which 
was  sacrificed  and  his  blood  carried  within  the  veil,  and  sprinkled 
on  the  mercy-seat ;  so  Christ  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body.  He 
was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  and  was  made  sin  for  us.  The 
atonement  of  Christ  was  an  offering  made  through  the  Eternal 
Spirit  without  spot  unto  God  to  render  him  propitious  ;  to  purge 
the  conscience,  and  to  obtain  eternal  redemption  for  us.  This 
offering  and  sacrifice  was  made  by  Jesus  Christ  in  the  character  of 
HIGH  PRIEST.  But  he  infinitely  excelled  those  high  priests  who 
ministered  in  the  tabernacle  below.  These  were  obliged  to  offer 
their  atoning  sacrifices  year  by  year,  because  they  could  not  really 
put  away  sin,  but  significantly  pointed  to  the  one  true  and  effica- 
cious atonement.  They  were  not  permitted  to  continue  by  reason 
of  death,  "  But  Jesus  Christ  because  he  continueth  for  ever  hath 
an  unchangeable  priesthood,  wherefore  he  is  able  to  save  to  the 
uttermost  all  that  come  unto  God  by  him,  seeing  he  ever  liveth  to 
make  intercession  for  them."  It  seems  to  have  been  on  this  ac- 
count that  he  was  declared  to  be  a  priest  for  ever  after  the  order 
of  Melchisedec,  because  the  sacred  scriptures  make  no  mention  of 
his  death,  or  that  there  were  any  others  in  the  succession  either 
before  or  after  him.  But  again,  "  other  priests  were  encompassed 
with  infirmity,  and  had  to  offer  first  for  their  own  sins  and  then  for 
those  of  the  people  ;  but  Jesus  Christ  is  holy,  harmless,  undefiled, 
and  separate  from  sinners."  He  had,  therefore,  no  need  to  offer 
any  sacrifice  for  himself,  but  only  to  make  the  one  offering  which 
has,  in  itself,  merit  enough  to  make  atonement  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world.  It  is  also  mentioned,  as  a  remarkable  point  of  dis- 
tinction, that  Christ  was  made  high  priest  by  a  solemn  oath.  He 
is  also  styled  the  surety  of  a  better  covenant,  and  the  mediator  of 
the  New  Testament.  And  the  end  of  all  his  sacerdotal  acts  and 
offerings  was  that  by  his  death,  they  who  are  called  may  receive  the 
promise  of  eternal  inheritance. 

The  legal  sacrifices  had  in  themselves  no  intrinsic  value ;  and 


ON  THE  ATONEMENT. 


57 


when  the  people  made  a  merit  and  a  righteousness  of  them,  so  far 
from  being  pleasing  to  a  holy  God,  they  were  exceedingly  offen- 
sive. When  Christ  came,  therefore,  he  said,  "  Sacrifice  and  offer- 
ing thou  wouldst  not,  but  a  body  hast  thou  prepared  me  ;"  intimating 
that  these  typical  rites  were  now  to  be  abolished  to  make  way  for 
the  only  efficacious  offering  which  was  his  own  pure  and  sacred 
body  which  had  been  miraculously  prepared  for  him  in  the  womb 
of  the  virgin.  The  substance  being  come,  the  shadows  were  now 
ready  to  vanish  away.  "  He  taketh  away  the  first  that  he  may 
establish  the  second."  And  the  Son  being  come  as  a  priest,  and 
furnished  with  a  spotless  sacrifice,  cries,  "  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy 
will,  O  God.  By  the  which  will  we  are  sanctified  through  the 
offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ,  once  for  all."  As  was  before 
said,  this  priest  had  no  need  to  offer  more  than  once,  once  for  all. 
"  Other  priests  stood  daily  ministering,  and  offering  oftentimes  the 
same  sacrifices  which  can  never  take  away  sin,  but  Jesus  Christ, 
after  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins,  for  ever  sat  down  at  the 
right  hand  of  God." 

No  doctrine  of  the  Bible  is  more  clearly  and  fully  expounded 
than  that  of  atonement,  by  the  apostle  Paul  in  this  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  And  having  now  exhibited  the  leading  points  in  his  ex- 
position, nothing  more  would  be  necessary,  were  it  not  for  the 
pride  and  perverseness  of  men,  who  refuse  to  receive  the  simple 
truth  of  God's  word,  and  turn  themselves  every  way  to  evade  the 
force  of  the  divine  testimony.  It  is  truly  wonderful,  after  what  we 
have  seen,  that  any  should  deny  that  the  doctrine  of  a  vicarious 
atonement  is  taught  in  the  sacred  scriptures.  We  may  ask  such 
persons  to  tell  us  what  more  could  have  been  said,  had  the  apostle 
intended  to  inculcate  this  doctrine  1  But  let  us  consider  some  of 
the  arguments  by  which  they  attempt  to  defend  their  cause.  And, 
in  the  first  place,  they  object  to  the  doctrine  as  unreasonable,  and 
dero'gatory  to  the  character  of  God.  They  allege  that  there  can 
exist  no  necessity  for  such  a  costly  sacrifice  ;  that  if  the  creatures 
of  God  sin  against  him,  he  is  a  merciful  sovereign  who  can  forgive 
them  without  requiring  any  atonement  ;  and  they  assert  that 
reason  teaches  us  that  if  they  repent  and  reform,  God  will  receive 
them  into  favour,  and  remit  all  the  punishment. which  was  threat- 
ened. 

Such  reasonings  might  appear  plausible  enough,  if  man  were  a 
competent  judge  of  what  plans  it  becomes  the  Ruler  of  the  universe 
to  adopt  in  the  government  of  the  world  ;  or  if  human  reason 
could  decide  what  terms  of  reconciliation  a  holy  God  ought  to 
adopt  for  his  rebellious  creatures.  It  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  all 
such  objections,  that  the  same  mode  of  reasoning,  applied  to  the 
state  of  things  as  they  actually  exist  in  the  physical  and  moral 
world,  would  lead  us  directly  to  atheism.  We  should  not  find  it 
difficult  to  frame  plausible  objections  to  the  structure  of  the  uni- 
verse, to  the  constitution  of  man,  to  the  providence  of  God,  and  to 
every  principle  of  moral  government.     Why  should  a  God  of  in- 


S8  ON   THE    ATONEMENT. 

finite  benevolence  bind  his  creatures  by  a  law  ;  and  especially,  why 
should  he  annex  to  it  a  penalty  so  tremendous  as  death  ?  The 
acts  of  creatures  cannot  affect  the  infinite,  Almighty  Ruler  of  the 
universe. 

The  doctrines  of  divine  revelation  can  never  be  brought  with 
propriety  to  the  bar  of  human  reason :  they  are  as  far  above  rea- 
son as  the  heaven  is  above  the  earth.  When  a  revelation  is  suffi- 
ciently attested,  it  is  reasonjible  to  receive  every  thing  which  it  con- 
tains, however  repugnant  to  our  preconceived  opinions.  To  act 
on  any  other  principle  is  the  height  of  arrogance  and  impiety. 
Why  do  we  want  a  revelation  but  to  teach  us  what  reason  does 
not  know  ?  But  it  is  pretended  that  this  doctrine  of  atonement  is 
not  taught  in  the  scriptures.  Then,  as  we  said  before,  it  cannot  be 
taught  in  words.  If  this  is  not  a  doctrine  of  scripture  nothing  is 
taught  in  scripture.  It  would  be  almost  as  reasonable  to  assert 
that  there  are  neither  words  nor  letters  in  the  Bible.  As  we  have 
exhibited  sufficient  scriptural  evidence  of  the  doctrine,  we  might 
decline  any  further  discussion  of  the  subject.  But  lest  these  pre- 
tended Rationalists  boast  that  reason  is  altogether  on  this  side,  we 
will  descend  into  the  arena,  and  contend  with  them  on  their  own 
ground,  and  with  their  own  weapons.  The  question  which  we 
propose  first  to  discuss  is,  whether  a  holy  God  can  consistently  for- 
give sin  without  any  satisfaction  or  atonement.  It  is  agreed  that 
God  exercises  a  moral  government  over  the  world,  and  has  given 
to  man  a  just  and  good  law,  which  all  men  have  transgressed. 
That  sin  exists  is  not  disputed,  and  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  all 
sin  deserves  to  be  punished,  for  otherwise  it  would  not  be  sin — it 
would  have  no  demerit.  And  if  it  did  not  deserve  to  be  punished, 
it  would  not  need  forgiveness,  for  forgiveness  is  the  remission  of 
deserved  punishment.  If,  then,  sin  deserves  to  be  punished,  it  can- 
not be  an  evil  thing,  or  inconsistent  with  the  divine  attributes,  to 
inflict  deserved  punishment.  To  assert  this  would  be  to  sa/  that 
it  was  wrong  for  the  Ruler  of  the  universe  to  do  right — unjust  to 
act  justly,  by  giving  to  every  one  his  due.  But  this  is  held  by  no 
one.  Even  Socinians  admit,  that  it  is  right  for  God  to  punish  sin, 
and  if  right  to  punish  in  one  instance,  it  must  be  right  to  punish  sin 
in  every  instance,  according  to  its  demerit.  Indeed,  as  the  punish- 
ment of  sin  is  the  act  of  God  as  a  righteous  Governor  or  just 
Judge,  we  do  not  see  how  he  can  do  otherwise  than  impartially 
punish  all  sin  according  to  its  demerit.  How  can  the  Judge  of  all 
the  earth,  who  must  do  right,  punish  one  sinner,  and  permit  another 
'  equally  guilty  to  go  unpunished.  Certainly  reason  can  never  teach 
us  that  he  will  do  so.  Reason  cannot  teach  opposite  things,  and 
we  have  seen  that  it  is  the  dictate  of  reason  that  sin  should  be 
punished  according  to  its  demerit ;  the  same  reason  never  can  teach 
that  in  some  instances  it  should  not  be  punished  at  all.  Whatever 
argument  will  prove  that  sin  ought  not  to  be  punished  in  one 
instance,  may  be  applied  to  any  other  case  ;  and  would  go  to 
prove  that  no  sin  could  be  punished  in  the  divine  government. 


ON   THE    ATONEMENT.  59' 

But  we  know  that  some  sins  have  been  and  are  punished  ;  reason, 
therefore,  cannot  assure  us,  or  even  render  it  probable,  that  in  a 
perfectly  righteous,  moral  government,  any  sin  will  escape  deserved 
punishment.  We  know  that  it  is  alleged  that  in  those  cases,  in 
which  the  punishment  of  sin  is  remitted,  there  is  a  special  reason  for 
this  dispensation — namely,  the  repentance  and  reformation  of  the 
sinner.  Unitarians  themselves  maintain,  that  if  no  repentance  in- 
tervene to  turn  aside  the  stroke  of  justice,  transgressors  must  bear 
their  iniquity.  It  follows,  therefore,  upon  their  own  principles, 
that  if  none  should  ever  repent,  there  could  be  no  remission.  And 
it  would  not  be  very  difficult  to  show  that  sinners  left  to  them- 
selves will  never  repent.  But  we  shall  now  proceed  upon  the  sup- 
position that  a  sinner  can  repent  and  reform  his  life  at  any  time. 
We  ask  how  can  it  be  ascertained  that  sin  will  be  pardoned  upon 
repentance  without  any  atonement  ?  It  cannot  be  learned  from 
experience,  for  the  natural  consequences  of  intemperance,  debauch- 
ery, fraud,  &c.,  are  not  removed  by  repentance;  and  yet  these 
consequences  of  sin  ai'e  a  part  of  God's  moral  administration.  In 
civil  governments  the  criminal  who  has  been  convicted  of  murder, 
treason,  perjury,  or  any  other  crime,  is  never  released  and  the 
punishment  remitted  as  a  matter  of  course,  because  he  repents. 
However  sincerely  penitent,  he  pays  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  a 
contrary  course  would  be  subversive  of  all  law  and  government. 
Suppose  that  God  should  create  two  moral  agents  of  similar  pow- 
ers, and  place  them  under  the  same  law,  and  in  the  same  circum- 
stances ;  and  suppose  that  one  of  them  should  continue  perfectly  to 
obey  his  maker,  and  that  the  other  should  wickedly  rebel  against 
his  sovereign ;  can  any  man  persuade  himself  that  he  could  treat 
these  creatures  exactly  in  the  same  manner  ?  God  cannot  look 
upon  sin  but  with  disapprobation  proportioned  to  its  malignity ; 
and  he  cannot  but  be  pleased  with  obedience.  Unless,  therefore, 
he  should  act  contrary  to  his  own  views  and  feelings,  he  cannot 
but  make  a  difference  between  the  man  who  loves  and  serves  him 
with  all  his  heart,  and  him  who  ungratefully  cherishes  enmity 
against  his  Maker.  This  case  is  so  plain  that  no  man  who  has 
any  perception  of  moral  fitness  can  doubt  respecting  it.  The  So- 
cinian,  as  well  as  others,  feels  the  necessity  of  such  a  course  in  a 
moral  Governor ;  and  he  does  not  plead  for  pardon  to  such  as  con- 
tinue obstinate  in  their  rebellion.  He  only  maintains  that  God 
may  remit  the  penalty  of  his  law  to  him  who  repents  and  reforms. 
Let  us  suppose  then  that  these  two  creatures  had  a  probation  of  a 
hundred  years ;  and  that  while  the  first  fulfilled  his  duty  to  the 
end  of  his  course,  the  other,  having  rebelled  soon  after  his  creation, 
persists  obstinately  in  iniquity  until  near  the  close  of  the  last  year 
of  the  period  of  probation,  and  that  he  then  repents  and  returns 
to  his  duty  ;  how  ought  an  infinitely  righteous,  moral  Governor 
to  treat  these  persons  ?  Would  it  be  right  merely  on  the  ground 
of  repentance  to  admit  this  penitent  to  as  rich  a  reward  as  if  he 


60  ON    THE    ATONEMENT. 

had  never  offended  ?     And  what  effect  would  this  have  on  other 
free  agents  when  put  on  their  probation  ? 

If  any  should  still  be  of  opinion,  that  upon  repentance,  the 
Governor  of  the  world  may  and  ought  to  treat  the  returning  sinner 
just  as  if  he  had  never  offended,  and  that  this  is  the  dictate  of  sound 
reason  ;  it  must  always  be  known  to  creatures  put  on  probation 
under  a  moral  law.  The  consequence  will  be,  that  God  gives  an 
option  to  every  creature  whether  he  will  obey  perfectly  and  con- 
stantly, or  sin  and  rebel  the  greater  part  of  the  time,  and  at  last  re- 
pent, for  the  results  will  be  precisely  the  same  in  each  case.  Such 
a  provision  annexed  to  the  divine  law  would  completely  annul  it. 
It  would  in  fact  be  an  invitation  to  creatures  to  rebel,  as  they  would 
be  assured  that  they  have  it  in  their  power  to  prevent  all  punish- 
ment, and  to  secure  the  same  reward  as  if  they  never  transgressed. 
If  it  should  be  said  that  their  punishment  might  be  remitted,  and 
yet  they  not  put  on  an  equality  with  those  who  never  disobeyed, 
we  answer  that  this  concedes  the  principle  for  which  we  contend, 
as  in  this  case  a  part  of  the  punishment  would  be  inflicted  ;  for 
whatever  a  man  loses  in  consequence  of  sin,  or  whatever  mark  of 
disapprobation  is  set  on  him  by  God,  makes  a  part  of  the  punish- 
ment of  his  sin.  How  is  it  then  an  amiable  virtue  in  men,  it  will 
be  asked,  to  forgive  those  who  offend  them,  so  that  such  forgive- 
ness is  made  a  condition  of  asking  for  forgiveness  ?  To  answer 
this  objection  fully  would  require  more  space  than  we  can  afford 
in  this  review.  We  will  therefore  merely  indicate  the  principle  on 
which  a  reply  may  be  made.  Creatures  have  nothing  to  do  in  the 
punishment  of  sin  as  a  moral  evil ;  God  is  the  only  administrator  of 
his  own  law.  Vengeance  belongeth  unto  him,  he  will  repay.  No 
creature,  therefore,  can  be  compared  with  God  in  relation  to  this 
matter.  Again,  when  men  receive  injury  or  offence  from  their 
fellow  creatures,  it  is  reasonable  that  they  should  not  undertake  to 
avenge  themselves,  because  this  is  going  beyond  their  proper 
sphere,  and  encroaching  on  the  prerogative  of  God,  who  takes  cog- 
nisance of  all  offences,  and  knows  their  exact  demerit.  Besides, 
as  we  are  all  offenders  against  God,  and  can  be  saved  from  wrath 
only  by  his  mercy,  it  is  reasonable  that  we  should  not  be  rigid  in 
executing  punishment  on  those  who  trespass  against  us. 

But  it  may  be  objected  that,  according  to  this  view  of  the  divine 
character  and  government,  he  has  the  attribute  of  justice  but  not 
of  mercy ;  whereas  all  men  who  entertain  correct  opinions  of  the 
divine  attributes  believe  that  mercy  is  the  most  amiable  perfection 
of  his  character.  To  which  we  reply,  that  it  is  even  so,  that  reason 
knows  nothing  of  the  attribute  of  mercy.  Reason  clearly  indicates 
that  God  is  good  to  the  obedient,  but  it  cannot  inform  us  that  he 
will  remit  the  punishment  of  any  sin.  Indeed  it  is  by  reason  that 
we  conclude  that  God  will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his 
deeds,  and  it  never  can  teach,  therefore,  that  in  some  instances 
he  will  not  render  to  every  one  his  due.  The  idea  of  divine  mercy 
so  prevalent  among  men  is  derived  from  revelation,  and  is  intimate- 


ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  61 

ly  connected  with  the  atonement.  The  very  design  of  the  atone- 
ment is  to  enable  the  righteous  Governor  of  the  universe  to  exer- 
cise mercy,  not  at  the  expense  of  justice,  which  is  impossible,  but 
by  a  complete  satisfaction  to  justice,  "  that  God  might  be  just  and 
the  justifier  of  him  who  believeth  in  Jesus."  It  is  a  radical  mistake 
in  theology  to  think  that  mercy  is  exercised  irrespectively  of  the 
demands  of  justice.  God  cannot  divest  himself  of  his  justice  any 
more  than  of  his  being ;  and  if  his  retributive  justice  have  claims  on 
any  one  on  account  of  sin,  these  claims  can  never  be  set  aside. 
Erroneous  ideas  on  this  point  have  been  the  source  of  many  errors  ; 
the  ramifications  from  this  root  are  very  extensive,  but  we  cannot 
trace  them  now  through  all  their  windings. 

It  may  be  again  objected,  that  on  these  principles  mercy  is  not 
an  essential  attribute  of  God.  If  by  essential  be  meant  that  which 
belongs  to  his  nature,  mercy  is  essential ;  all  divine  attributes  are 
essential.  But  we  admit  that  there  was  no  necessity  for  the  exer- 
cise of  mercy.  To  suppose  that  there  was,  is  to  destroy  its  very 
nature.  Mercy  must  depend  on  mere  will.  It  is  grace,  but  grace 
might  be  withheld,  or  it  ceases  to  be  grace,  and  becomes  justice. 
As  God  showed  no  mercy  to  apostate  angels,  he  might  have  pro- 
ceeded on  the  same  principles  of  rectitude  towards  fallen  men. 
The  very  idea  of  mercy  is  derived  from  the  doctrine  of  atonement, 
and  yet  an  argument  is  derived  from  mercy  to  overthrow  the 
atonement.  Take  away  the  atonement,  and  mercy  and  grace  are 
blotted  out  with  it. 

We  have  hitherto  been  arguing  the  necessity  of  atonement  from 
the  holiness  and  justice  of  God  ;  the  truth  and  faithfulness  of  God 
furnish  an  argument  corroborative  of  the  same  thing. 

When  the  Ruler  of  the  universe  promulgates  a  law,  it  is  not  only 
a  rule  to  guide  the  obedience  of  the  creature,  but  a  solemn  decla- 
ration of  the  principles  on  which  he  means  to  administer  his  go- 
vernment. And  when  he  annexes  a  certain  penalty  to  his  law,  his 
veracity  is  pledged  to  execute  it ;  for  a  penalty  is  nothing  else  than  a 
public  intimation  to  the  creature  what  the  consequence  of  transgres- 
sion will  be.  Some  theologians,  however,  to  answer  a  particular 
purpose,  have  maintained,  that  although  God  is  bound  by  his  faithful- 
ness to  fulfil  his  promises,  he  is  not  in  the  same  manner  obliged  to 
execute  his  threatenings.  And  they  assign  this  reason  of  the  differ- 
ence, that  as  the  interests  of  creatures  are  involved  in  the  fulfilment 
of  a  promise,  this  gives  them  a  kind  of  right  which  cannot  be 
violated,  whereas  no  one  is  injured  by  an  omission  to  execute 
threatenings ;  but  the  contrary.  The  doctrine  is,  that  God  may 
act  contrary  to  his  own  public  and  solemn  declaration,  provided 
no  one  is  injured  by  his  doing  so.  But  if  the  penalty  of  the  law 
was  annexed  to  prevent  evil  to  the  public,  from  its  neglect  will  not 
the  public  interest  suffer  ?  And  if  it  does  not,  will  such  a  course  be 
for  the  honour  of  God  ?  Shall  we  attribute  to  the  God  of  truth  a 
disregard  to  his  word,  which  all  must  acknowledge  would  be  a 
great  moral  defect  in  man  ?    Certainly  this  ought  not  to  be  receiv- 


62  ON   THE    ATONEMENT. 

ed  as  a  settled  principle  in  the  divine  administration  without  the 
most  manifest  proof.  We  believe,  that  at  the  first  hearing  of  such 
a  proposition  every  unsophisticated  mind  would  revolt.  The 
great  and  glorious  God  has  claimed  for  himself  truth  and  faithful- 
ness as  attributes  essential  to  his  character ;  and  he  has  manifested 
his  detestation  of  all  falsehood  in  creatures  by  the  strongest  expres- 
sions. We  ought  therefore  to  be  cautious  of  ascribing  to  him  what 
would  have  the  most  distant  tendency  to  derogate  from  his  vera- 
city. "  Hath  he  spoken,  and  will  he  not  do  it  ?"  It  ought  to  be 
considered  also,  tl\^t  this  principle  would  go  far  to  render  all  divine 
threatenings  nugatory.  The  certainty  of  punishment  is  found  to 
have  more  effect  than  its  severity.  But  this  doctrine  renders  it 
altogether  uncertain,  when  a  penalty  is  denounced,  whether  it  will 
ever  be  executed.  It  spreads  uncertainty  over  the  future  punish- 
ment of  the  guilty.  Who  knows  but  that  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth 
will  at  the  day  of  judgment  remit  the  penalty  incurred  by  all  sin- 
ners, men  and  angels  ?  This  principle  is  eminently  calculated  to 
subserve  the  cause  of  the  Universalists,  but  we  do  not  know  that 
they  have  had  the  boldness  to  avail  themselves  of  it.  And  it  does 
away  at  once  all  necessity  of  atonement ;  for  if  the  penalty  of  the 
law  may  be  remitted,  and  is  often  remitted,  there  can  be  no  abso- 
lute need  that  any  one,  much  less  a  divine  person,  should  suffer  a 
cruel  and  ignominious  death,  to  open  a  way  for  pardon. 

As  one  consequence  of  this  doctrine,  referred  to  above,  is,  that 
God  may,  for  aught  we  know,  omit  to  inflict  the  penalty  now 
threatened,  upon  any  transgressor,  and  as  this  is  a  very  grave 
objection,  we  have  understood  that  the  advocates  of  the  tenet  en-' 
deavour  to  evade  it  by  making  a  distinction  between  a  threatening 
and  a  prediction,  that  while  the  former  may  be  changed  for  good 
reason,  the  latter  must  be  verified,  for  the  prophecies  must  be  ful- 
filled. To  us  there  appears  no  difference,  except  that  threatenings 
are  not  absolute,  but  conditional.  In  a  prophecy  an  event  is 
usually  foretold  as  certain  ;  in  a  threatening  it  is  made  to  depend 
on  the  disobedience  of  the  creature.  A  penalty  is  only  incurred 
■where  there  is  transgression  ;  but  on  the  supposition  that  the  law 
is  broken,  it  is  a  prediction  of  what  will  be  done  with  the  sinner. 
If  it  is  not,  it  has  no  force,  and  cannot  be  even  a  terror  to  evil 
doers.  Besides,  the  reason  assigned  why  God  may  omit  to  exe- 
cute a  threatening  when  incurred,  will  equally  apply  to  a  predic- 
tion. If  the  thing  predicted  be  an  evil,  no  one  will  be  injured  by 
omitting  to  bring  it  about. 

The  cases  from  Scripture  which  have  been  adduced  to  support 
this  hypothesis,  will  not  sustain  it.  The  threatenings  against  Nine- 
veh were  obviously  conditional.  Within  forty  days  this  great 
city  would  have  been  destroyed,  had  not  the  inhabitants  repented. 
That  it  should  be  thus  understood  is  evident  from  commissioning 
a  prophet  to  go  and  preach  to  them.  If  the  prediction  had  been 
absolute,  there  would  have  been  no  object  to  be  answered  by 
preaching.     And  thus  the  king  of  Nineveh  and  his  people  under- 


ON   THE    ATONEMENT.  63 

Stood  it :  for  in  the  hope  of  averting  the  heavy  judgment  which 
impended,  they  humbled  themselves  vs^ith  fasting  and  sackcloth,  and 
God  was  pleased  to  spare  the  city.  In  all  this  there  is  nothing  to 
favour  the  opinion  that  God  will  not  certainly  execute  his  threat- 
enings.  If  the  Ninevites  had  not  repented,  and  God  had  omitted 
to  destroy  the  city,  then  the  case  would  have  been  in  point.  But 
as  it  is,  it  furnishes  no  example  of  God's  failing  to  execute  his 
threatenings. 

But  another  case  of  much  greater  importance,  and  to  suit  which 
it  is  probable  the  doctrine  in  question  was  invented,  is  that  of 
Adam  in  Paradise.  It  is  alleged  and  confidently  asserted,  that  the 
penalty  was  not  executed  on  him  in  conformity  to  the  threatening, 
"  In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die."  Adam  ate 
the  forbidden  fruit,  but  did  not  die  on  that  very  day,  nor  for  cen- 
turies afterwards.  If  God  could  not  consistently  with  his  truth 
deviate  from  a  threatened  penalty,  Adam  must  have  died  on  that 
very  day,  as  is  evident.  If  it  be  so  that  God  said  one  thing  and 
did  another,  it  is  a  serious  case,  not  as  it  relates  to  this  or  that 
theory  of  Christianity,  but  to  divine  revelation.  We  do  not  know 
any  objection  which  a  deist  could  more  plausibly  and  forcibly  urge 
against  the  Bible  ;  for  it  would  be  difficult  to  persuade  a  sensible 
deist  that  there  was  nothing  derogatory  to  the  truth  of  God  in 
failing  to  do  what  he  solemnly  declared  should  be  done.  But  may 
not  the  abettors  of  this  opinion  be  mistaken  when  they  assert  that 
the  threatening  was  in  no  sense  executed  on  the  very  day  on  which 
Adam  sinned  ?  The  word  death  has  other  significations  besides 
the  extinction  of  animal  life.  Our  first  parents  were  equally  stran- 
gers to  every  species  of  death.  As  death  is  the  opposite  of  life, 
they  would  expect  the  loss  of  life  ;  but  the  noblest  and  most  pre- 
cious life  which  they  enjoyed  consisted  in  the  image  of  God,  and 
in  communion  with  him.  The  mere  separation  of  the  soul  and 
body  is  a  trifle  compared  with  a  separation  from  God  as  the  source 
of  life.  Undoubtedly  by  death  in  the  threatening  we  should  un- 
derstand all  penal  evils  of  every  kind  and  degree  ;  for  no  punish- 
ment is  ever  inflicted  on  creatures  which  is  not  a  part  of  the 
penalty  of  the  law.  Every  bodily  pain  and  mental  pang  help  to 
make  up  this  death.  And  as  temporal  death  comes  on  gradually, 
man  may  be  said  to  be  dying  from  the  moment  when  he  became 
mortal.  He  was  now  also  dead  in  law  ;  the  eternal  life  which 
God  promised  as  the  reward  of  obedience  was  forfeited,  and  the 
law,  instead  of  a  blessing,  denounced  death.  The  whole  of  that 
threatened  death  could  not  be  endured  in  one  day ;  it  extends 
through  eternity.  It  is  sufficient  to  save  the  divine  veracity  if  the 
commencement  of  death  was  experienced  on  that  day.  The  exe- 
cution of  the  penalty  is  supposed  to  have  been  suspended  by  the 
interposition  of  a  scheme  of  mercy.  This  might  have  modified 
the  circumstances  of  our  first  parents,  and  no  doubt  did,  but  could 
not  prevent  the  execution  of  the  sentence  threatened.  The  Sa- 
viour finds  those  whom  he  came  to  save,  lost,  dead  in  trespasses 


64      .  ON  THE  ATONEMENT. 

and  sin,  children  of  wrath,  under  the  curse.  From  this  he  under- 
takes to  redeem  them,  by  dying  for  them.  The  sentence  of  the 
law  was  therefore  executed  upon  our  first  parents  on  the  very  day 
of  their  sinning,  and  virtually  on  all  their  posterity,  for  we  are  all 
born  under  the  sentence  of  that  death  which  fell  on  them.  We  are 
therefore  under  no  necessity  of  having  recourse  to  this  opinion  so 
derogatory  to  the  divine  attributes,  in  order  to  explain  the  facts  in 
the  case  of  Adam. 

Let  us  next  proceed  to  inquire,  since  the  penalty  of  the  law  can- 
not be  set  aside,  whether  the  punishment  of  sin  can  be  transferred 
from  the  actual  transgressor  to  a  surety  or  substitute.  This  is  a 
vital  question  in  Christian  theology.  The  whole  gospel  system  of 
salvation  turns  upon  this  point :  all  our  hopes  and  dearest  interests 
are  suspended  on  it. 

This  doctrine  of  substitution  and  satisfaction  by  the  obedience 
and  sufferings  of  another  is  one  of  pure  revelation.  Reason  never 
could  have  discovered  that  such  a  relaxation  of  the  law  as  admits 
one  to  die  in  the  place  of  another  was  possible  consistently  with 
the  moral  government  of  God.  Indeed,  if  the  principle  of  substi- 
tution could  have  been  reasoned  out  by  some  mighty  intellect,  it 
would  have  answered  no  purpose,  as  certainly  no  created  wisdom 
could  have  found  a  person  so  qualified  as  to  accomplish  the  work. 
We  need  not  be  surprised,  therefore,  that  the  pride  of  human  rea- 
son is  offended  with  this  doctrine,  and  sets  itself  in  opposition  to 
the  plan  of  infinite  wisdom — a  plan  which  may  be  called  the  great 
mystery  of  the  Gospel,  which  was  hidden  from  eternity  in  the  deep 
counsels  of  God,  until  after  the  fall  of  man  it  began  to  be  deve- 
loped, and  still  by  the  incarnation  and  death  of  the  Son  of  God  for 
us  sinners,  the  divine  economy  was  revealed  in  a  blaze  of  light.  As 
the  whole  Bible  is  a  revelation  of  this  method  of  salvation  by  the 
merit  of  another,  who  has  been  pleased  to  stand  in  our  place  and 
make  atonement  for  us,  to  produce  all  the  proofs  of  the  doctrine 
would  be  to  expound  the  whole  Bible.  That  the  punishment  due 
to  the  guilty  can  consistently  with  justice  be  inflicted  on  an  inno- 
cent substitute  capable  of  enduring  it,  and  who  voluntarily  takes 
the  place  of  the  transgressor,  is  the  grand  characteristic  of  the  gos- 
pel system.  It  is  a  device  of  infinite  wisdom  to  open  a  way  for 
divine  mercy,  while  justice  receives  a  perfect  satisfaction.  Such 
a  principle  could  scarcely  find  a  place  among  men.  It  would  not 
be  proper  to  permit  a  virtuous  citizen  to  sacrifice  himself  for  the 
guilty,  for  by  this  course  the  public  would  receive  a  double  detri- 
ment ;  first  from  the  loss  of  a  good  citizen,  and  secondly  from  hav- 
ing the  guilty  person  retained  in  the  bosom  of  society.  If  a  case 
could  be  found  in  which  no  evil  of  any  kind  could  arise  from  such 
a  substitution,  all  objections  would  cease.  The  case  of  Zaleucus, 
king  of  the  Locrians,  has  often  been  mentioned  with  great  applause. 
The  story  is  related  by  Diodorus  Siculus  and  ^lian  ;  and  by  Plu- 
tarch and  Valerius  Maximus  is  considered  a  most  remarkable  dis- 
play of  justice.     This  king  having  made  a  law  that  whoever  should 


i 


ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  65 

be  convicted  of  the  crime  of  adultery  should  have  both  his  eyes 
put  out ;  when  his  own  son  was  found  guilty,  the  whole  state  be- 
sought him  to  remit  the  threatened  punishment.  This  he  refused. 
But  that  t-he  law  might  substantially  have  its  demand,  and  justice 
be  done,  and  a  salutary  example  given,  he  consented  to  participate 
in  the  punishment  himself,  and  while  one  of  his  son's  eyes  was  put 
out,  he  substituted  one  of  his  own  for  the  other.  This  case,  so 
much  celebrated  by  the  ancients,  Socinus  speaks  of  contemptu- 
ously, and  says  that  this  prince  ought  to  be  classed  with  those  rulers 
who  deserve  to  be  denominated  weak  and  rash.  While  the  rigour 
of  the  law  and  the  inflexibility  of  justice  were  maintained,  still  the 
case  is  liable  to  some  strong  objections.  But  none  of  these  apply 
to  the  substitution  of  Christ.  For  while  the  law  is  maintained  and 
honoured,  no  injury  is  sustained  by  the  public,  nor  eventually  by 
the  substitute.  The  sinner  is  not  only  pardoned  but  purified,  and 
made  a  good  citizen.  The  divine  Mediator,  though  he  dies,  lives 
again,  and  receives  an  ample  compensation  for  his  humiliation  and 
sufferings.  Here,  then,  is  a  transaction  which  gloriously  displays 
the  divine  justice  and  mercy  ;  which  maintains  the  honour  of  the 
divine  law,  and  at  the  same  time  rescues  a  great  multitude  of  lost 
souls  from  eternal  misery.  Why  should  we  complain  of  injustice 
when  no  one  is  injured  ?  The  case  stands  thus :  the  justice  of  God 
leads  him  necessarily  to  punish  sin,  the  law  denounces  a  penalty 
according  to  justice,  the  sinner  is  found  guilty  and  deserves  to  suf- 
fer. But  God  feels  love  and  compassion  towards  him,  and  enters  into 
covenant  with  his  own  Son  to  redeem  a  great  multitude  of  fallen 
men.  The  plan  is,  that  the  son  become  incarnate,  place  himself 
under  the  law,  bear  its  curse  by  dying  for  us,  and  thus  render  a 
complete  satisfaction  to  divine  justice.  By  such  an  atonement  a 
way  is  opened  for  the  exercise  of  mercy  to  the  guilty  ;  and  provi- 
sion is  made  for  their  regeneration  and  sanctification. 

But  the  objection  to  an  innocent  person's  suffering  for  the  guilty 
is  as  strong  against  the  Socinian  scheme  as  against  the  orthodox  ; 
for  they  adtnit  that  Christ,  an  innocent  person,  did  suffer  for  the 
benefit  of  men.  It  matters  not  whether  you  call  it  punishment  or 
not.  It  is  suffering  inflicted  on  the  innocent.  Its  being  considered 
the  punishment  of  our  sins  cannot  add  to  the  injustice  of  the  tran- 
saction. If  an  innocent  person  may  consistently  with  justice  suffer 
for  our  benefit,  he  may  endure  the  same  sufferings  as  the  penalty 
due  to  sin.  That  guilt  or  liableness  to  a  penalty  may  be  transferred 
from  the  actual  transgressor  to  others  connected  with  him,  may  be 
shown  from  the  case  of  Canaan  and  Ham,  of  David  and  the  peo- 
ple of  Israel,  seventy  thousand  of  whom  died  for  his  sin  ;  of  Jero- 
boam and  his  descendants  ;  of  Achan  and  his  children.  But  we 
will  confine  our  attention  to  the  remarkable  case  of  Saul  and  the 
Gibeonites,  where  we  have,  with  the  approbation  of  God,  seven  of 
the  descendants  of  Saul  executed  on  account  of  a  sin  committed 
by  him.  When  David  inquired  of  the  Lord  respecting  the  cause 
of  a  three  years'  famine,  by  which  Israel  was  aflHicted,  he  received 
5 


e6  ON    THE    ATONEMENT. 

for  answer,  that  it  was  for  Saul  and  his  bloody  house,  because  he 
slew  the  Gibeonites.  "  Wherefore  David  said  unto  the  Gibeonites, 
what  shall  I  do  for  you  ?  and  wherewith  shall  I  make  the  atone- 
ment, that  ye  may  bless  the  inheritance  of  the  Lord  ?"  "  And  they 
said  :  "  Let  seven  men  of  his  sons  be  delivered  unto  us,  and  we 
will  hang  them  up  unto  the  Lord  in  Gibeah  of  Saul."  "  And  he 
delivered  them  into  the  hands  of  the  Gibeonites,  and  they  hanged 
them  in  the  hill  before  the  Lord."  Now  there  is  no  evidence  that 
these  men  died  for  their  own  sin ;  the  judgments  of  God  had  fallen 
upon  all  Israel  on  account  of  Saul's  breach  of  covenant  and  cruelty. 
But  even  supposing  that  some  of  them  had  participated  in  his 
crime  ;  these  seven  were  not  the  whole  of  his  descendants,  and 
yet  they  suffered  for  the  whole  house.  Here  an  atonement  was 
made  to  the  Gibeonites  by  the  death  of  seven  men.  These  men 
bore  the  punishment  of  the  sin  of  their  ancestor,  and  the  offended 
party  was  satisfied,  and  the  divine  judgments  were  withdrawn. 
Here,  then,  is  a  clear  case  of  guilt  being  transferred  from  the  father 
to  his  offspring,  and  of  an  atonement  being  made  which  reconciled 
the  offended  party,  and  turned  away  the  wrath  of  God  from  the 
people.  And  this  was  in  exact  accordance  with  what  is  said  in 
the  second  commandment,  "  visiting  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers 
upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation  of  them  that 
hate  me." 

As  then  sin  cannot  go  unpunished,  as  law  and  justice  require  the 
execution  of  the  deserved  penalty,  there  can  be  no  salvation  for 
any  sinner,  unless  vicarious  sufferings  are  admitted.  There  was 
no  obligation  on  the  Ruler  of  the  universe  to  relax  the  strict  de- 
mands of  the  law  upon  the  individual  transgressor  ;  he  might  have 
held  him  to  endure  the  penalty  in  his  own  person.  But  when  a 
divine  substitute  appears,  and  offers  his  body  to  be  wounded  and 
bruised  for  our  iniquities,  and  his  soul  to  be  poured  out  unto  death 
to  make  an  atonement  for  our  sins — when  the  Lamb  of  God  pre- 
sents himself  to  the  stroke  of  divine  justice,  and  offers  to  bear  our 
iniquities  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree — to  die  the  just  for  the  unjust 
— to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  our  redemption,  and  God  is  well 
pleased  with  his  sacrifice,  and  accepts  it  as  sweet  smelling  savour, 
a  full  satisfaction  and  complete  atonement — who  has  any  right  to 
object  to  the  gracious  transaction  ?  Surely  there  is  no  injury  sus- 
tained, and  consequently  there  is  no  injustice. 

But  on  this  subject  we  have  to  contend  not  only  with  those  who 
deny  the  atonement  altogether,  but  with  brethren  who  have  in- 
vented a  new  scheme  of  atonement,  which  if  it  does  not  subvert 
the  doctrine,  greatly  obscures  and  endangers  it.  As  this  the- 
ory is  much  more  current  in  this  country  than  in  Great  Britain,  Mr. 
Symington  has  not  particularly  considered  it ;  although,  indeed, 
the  principles  which  he  has  established  do  virtually  overthrow  it. 
But  as  this  new  theory  is  in  our  opinion  exceedingly  dangerous, 
and  is  defended  and  zealously  propagated  by  many  among  our- 
selves, we  shall  be  pardoned  for  spending  some  time  in  examining 


t,  ON   THE    ATONEMENT.  67 

its  principles.  And  we  here  make  the  avowal  that  we  charge  the 
opinions  which  we  endeavour  to  refute  only  on  those  who  acknow- 
ledge them.  Some  have  thought  that  between  the  old  and  new 
theology  respecting  the  nature  of  the  atonement  there  was  a  mere 
verbal  difference,  and  that  the  controversy  was  a  logomachy  of  no 
manner  of  use.  It  is  not  so,  as  we  shall  sufficiently  make  appear 
before  we  conclude.  It  is  a  difference  so  great  and  radical,  that 
we  candidly  believe  that  the  new  theory  of  atonement  approaches 
much  nearer  to  the  Socinian  than  to  the  old  Calvinistic  view  of  the 
nature  and  end  of  Christ's  death.  We  do  not  say  this  invidiously  to 
prejudice  the  reader,  but  simply  with  the  view  of  calling  his  serious 
attention  to  the  subject.  We  know  there  are  many  who  have  acquired 
a  sickly  sensibility  in  regard  to  all  controversies  between  those  who 
belong  to  the  same  communion;  but  whatever  such  may  say  or 
think,  we  must,  as  far  as  we  are  able,  defend  the  truth  of  God,  and 
give  faithful  warning  of  such  errors  as  appear  to  us  to  be  danger- 
ous in  their  consequences  ;  or  we  should  be  traitors  to  our  divine 
Master.  And  as  to  the  disturbance  and  contention  which  arise 
from  the  discussion  of  theological  subjects,  they  should  be  attributed 
to  those  who  bring  in  new  opinions.  If  all  who  are  ministers  in 
our  church  did  sincerely  receive  the  doctrines  laid  down  in  our 
standards,  in  the  obvious  sense  in  which  they  have  from  the  be- 
ginning been  understood,  there  would  be  no  contention,  except 
with  those  without.  But  certainly  it  is  important  that  all  new 
opinions  on  a  subject  so  vital  as  the  atonement,  should  be  thoroughly 
canvassed  before  they  are  received.  It  is  scarcely  credible  that 
all  theologians,  until  very  lately,  should  have  mistaken  the  true 
nature  of  the  atonement. 

Until  very  recently,  as  far  as  we  know,  all  who  believed  that 
Christ  made  an  atonement  by  his  death,  were  agreed  that  he  en- 
dured substantially  the  penalty  of  the  law  which  we  had  broken  ; 
and  that  his  sufferings  and  death  were  a  complete  satisfaction  to 
the  retributive  or  vindicatory  justice  of  God;  so  that  the  word 
satisfaction  was  in  universal  use  to  express  what  is  now  signified 
by  the  word  atonement.  But  of  late  a  new  theory  has  been  in- 
vented, and  is  believed  by  many  to  be  a  real  improvement  in 
theology.  They  ask,  why  should  not  the  science  of  theology  be  pro- 
gressive as  well  as  other  sciences  ?  According  to  the  new  theory, 
Christ  our  Mediator  neither  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  nor 
made  any  satisfaction  to  distributive  justice.  His  death  was  de- 
signed to  be  merely  an  exhibition  of  God's  displeasure  at  sin,  and 
to  convince  the  universe  that  he  would  not  suffer  it  to  go  un- 
punished. When  we  first  noticed  this  opinion,  we  were  inclined 
to  hope  that  the  objection  was  not  to  the  substance  of  the  old 
doctrine  of  atonement,  but  to  some  supposed  inaccuracy  of  the 
language  commonly  employed  to  represent  it.  We  were  disposed 
in  charity  to  put  this  construction  upon  their  doctrine,  because  they 
were  accustomed  to  say,  that  Christ  did  not  literally  bear  the 
penalty  of  the  law,  which  they  alleged  to  be  an  impossible  things 


68  ON    THE    ATONEMENT. 

because  that  penalty  included  remorse  and  despair,  and  required 
the  sinner  to  suffer  eternal  death.  That  Christ  thus  suffered  the 
penalty  of  the  law,  not  one  of  the  orthodox  ever  held.  If,  there- 
fore, it  was  only  meant  to  deny  this,  there  was  no  difference  of 
opinion  but  what  was  verbal.  And  when  they  denied  that  Christ 
offered  a  satisfaction  to  retributive  justice,  they  were  careful  to  add, 
that  his  death  was  a  satisfaction  to  general  justice  ;  because,  ac- 
cording to  their  account  of  distributive  justice,  none  could  satisfy 
it  but  the  sinner  who  had  broken  the  law.  We  were  also  for  a 
•while  misled  by  their  still  using  the  terms  vicarious,  substitution,  i^c. 
But  since  we  have  become  better  acquainted  with  the  new  divinity 
we  are  convinced  that  these  technical  phrases  are  used  by  its  ad- 
vocates in  an  entirely  different  sense  from  what  they  bear  in  the 
theology  of  the  old  schooj.  By  vicarious,  they  do  not  mean 
obedience  or  suffering  in  our  stead  as  strictly  answering  the  de- 
mands of  a  violated  law,  but  something  done  or  suffered  which  is 
intended  to  answer  the  same  end  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  law.  And 
substitution  is  that  which  is  admitted  in  the  place  of  the  execution 
of  the  penalty  of  the  law.  Whether  this  use  of  these  theological 
phrases  is  consistent  with  perfect  candour,  we  shall  not  stop 
to  inquire.  It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  that  we  know  in 
what  sense  they  are  now  employed  by  the  teachers  of  the  new 
doctrine. 

We  do  not  apprehend  that  we  shall  be  charged  with  misrepre- 
senting the  new  theory  of  the  atonement  by  any  who  are  familiarly 
acquainted  with  it.  We  have  charged  upon  the  system  nothing 
but  what  its  abettors  avow  and  strenuously  plead  for.  But  for  the 
sake  of  others  we  will  exhibit  some  of  its  leading  features  in  the 
very  words  of  popular  writers,  who  have  appeared  in  print  as  its 
defenders.  It  is  no  part  of  our  business  to  reconcile  these  theolo- 
gians with  one  another,  or  even  with  themselves  ;  nor  do  we  at- 
tribute every  sentiment  of  each  to  all  who  belong  to  that  school. 
Let  every  man  in  this  case  bear  his  own  burden,  and  be  only 
answerable  for  his  own  words.  A  late  English  writer*  says : 
"  The  execution  of  the  penalty,  on  the  principles  of  distributive 
justice,  is  inconsistent  with  the  present  administration  of  moral 
government,  as  it  is  a  state  of  probation  and  trial.  The  exercise 
of  what  is  called  vindictive  justice  in  the  administration  of  the  law 
ill  accords  with  the  present  connexion  between  God  and  man." 
Again,  "  The  providential  government  which  God  exercises  over 
the  world  shows  that  threatenings  can  be  honourably  suspended, 
when  the  ends  of  good  government  can  be  secured  by  it."  And, 
as  a  proof  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  of  God  may  be  set  aside,  he 
alleges  the  fact  that  the  penalty  threatened  to  our  first  parents  was 
not  inflicted  :  "  for,"  says  the  writer,  "  had  it  been  literally  ex- 
ecuted there  would  have  been  no  human  race  now  existing.  The 
penalty  was,  *  in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die.' 

*  Jenkyn  on  the  Atonement 


ON   THE    ATONEMENT.  6^ 

Adam  did  eat  of  the  forbidden  fruit  and  was  spared.  He  did  not 
die.  The  penalty  was  suspended  and  his  punishment  was  re- 
mitted." It  would  be  difficult  to  crowd  a  greater  number  of  errors 
into  the  same  space  than  are  contained  in  the  preceding  citations. 
If  God  no  longer  governs  the  world  on  the  principles  of  distribu- 
tive justice,  what  sort  of  moral  government  do  we  live  under  ? 
If  vindicatory  justice  is  entirely  excluded  from  the  administration 
of  the  law,  how  can  God  judge  and  punish  the  wicked  ?  If  God 
can  at  pleasure  suspend  his  most  positive  and  solemn  threatenings, 
and  that  without  limit,  what  truth  was  there  in  uttering  these 
threatenings  ?  If  the  penalty  of  the  law  was  in  no  sense  executed 
on  Adam  after  he  fell,  then  he  suffered  no  injury  by  the  fall,  and 
we  his  posterity  suffer  no  inconvenience  from  our  connexion  with 
him.  If  Adam  would  have  been  annihilated,  had  the  penalty  been 
inflicted,  then  eternal  misery  was  not  the  penalty  of  the  original 
law,  and  that  so  many  are  exposed  to  this  dreadful  punishment  is 
entirely  owing  to  the  interposition  of  a  Saviour.  If  men  were  not 
liable  under  the  law  to  the  sentence  of  eternal  death,  then  Christ 
has  not  redeemed  any  from  that  curse.  Upon  these  principles  is 
it  clear  that  the  world  has  been  essentially  benefited  by  the  coming 
of  a  Saviour  ? 

A  popular  writer  of  our  own  country*  has  explicitly  informed 
us  what  they  mean  by  satisfying  the  demands  of  public  justice. 
"  In  this  acceptation,"  says  he,  "  it  has  no  direct  reference  to  law, 
but  embraces  those  principles  of  virtue  or  benevolence  by  which 
we  are  bound  to  govern  our  conduct,  and  by  which  God  governs 
the  universe."  "  This  atonement  was  required  that  God  might  be 
just  or  righteous ;  that  he  might  dp  the  thing  which  was  fit  and 
proper,  and  best  and  most  expedient  to  be  done,  and  at  the  same 
time  be  at  perfect  liberty  to  justify  him  who  believeth  in  Jesus." 
"  The  legal  obstacle  to  man's  salvation,"  he  informs  us,  "  was  re- 
moved by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ."  But  how  could  a  legal  obstacle 
be  removed  by  a  transaction  which  left  the  penalty  of  the  law 
in  full  force,  and  which  had  no  direct  relation  to  law?  That 
the  death  of  Christ  had  no  effect  in  removing  the  penalty  of 
the  law,  or  in  satisfying  distributive  justice,  this  writer  teaches 
expressly.  It  was  therefore  incumbent  on  him  to  show  how 
such  an  atonement  as  he  pleads  for  could  remove  any  legal  ob- 
stacle to  the  sinner's  salvation.  But  lest  we  should  be  suspected 
of  misunderstanding  or  misrepresenting  him,  we  will  cite  his  own 
words.  Speaking  of  the  design  of  Christ's  death  he  says  :  "  The 
penalty  of  the  law,  strictly  speaking,  was  not  inflicted  at  all,  for 
this  penalty,  in  which  was  embodied  the  principles  of  distributive 
justice,  required  the  death  of  the  sinner,  and  did  not  require  the 
death  of  Christ."     "  The  relation  of  the   sinner  to  the  curse 

WHICH  this  law  pronounces  AGAINST  THE  TRANSGRESSOR  IS  JUST  THE 
SAME  THAT  IT  WAS  WITHOUT  THE  ATONEMENT."      HoW  then,  WC  ask 

*  Dr.  Beman,  Sermons  on  the  Atonement. 


70  ON    THE    ATONEMENT. 

again,  could  such  an  atonement  remove  the  legal  obstacles  to  the 
sinner's  salvation  ?  But  he  goes  on  to  make  the  sentiment  ex- 
pressed above  still  stronger  by  saying,  *'  He  is  the  same  guilty  crea- 
ture he  w^as  before  satisfaction  was  made.  The  law^  has  the  same 
demand  upon  him.  The  law^  and  justice,  that  is  distributive  jus- 
tice as  expressed  in  the  law,  have  received  no  satisfaction  at  all." 
"  The  whole  legal  system  has  been  suspended,  at  least  for  the 
present,  to  make  way  for  one  of  a  different  character."  If  a  doc- 
trine which  subverts  or  suspends  the  law  of  God  is  antinomian, 
we  have  antinomianism  here  in  perfection.  There  is  no  law  now 
in  force  ;  the  whole  legal  system  is  suspended,  at  least  for  the  pre- 
sent.  How  long  this  lawless  state  is  to  continue  we  are  not  in- 
formed. In  another  part  of  the  same  work  this  writer  asks :  "  How 
did  the  atonement  made  by  Jesus  Christ,  prepare  the  way  for 
the  exercise  of  mercy  to  sinners  ?"  After  telling  us  what  pur- 
poses it  did  not  answer,  in  stating  which  he  sets  aside  all  the  usual 
ends  which  have  been  assigned  by  the  orthodox,  he  concludes  by 
declaring,  "  that  it  is  a  sovereign  act  of  God  as  moral  Governor." 
"  Should  it  be  asked,"  says  he, "if  the  arm  of  distributive  justice 
can  be  arrested,  and  if  the  law  that  threatened  is  not  in  this  instance 
to  inflict  the  curse,  why  was  not  this  special,  sovereign  interposition 
so  arranged,  as  not  to  involve  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  ?" 
The  very  question  which  we  wish  to  have  answered  ;  and  until  it 
is  answered,  we  shall  consider  the  new  theory  as  essentially 
defective.  Here  was  the  point  which  called  for  all  the  ingenuity 
and  reasoning  powers  of  the  author ;  but  instead  of  meeting  the 
difficulty,  or  attempting  a  full  answer,  he  merely  says,  "  We  must 
recur  to  the  doctrine  before  advanced  and  defended."  Where 
that  defence  is  made  we  know*  not.  We  believe,  however,  that 
the  advocate  of  this  new  doctrine  could  not  have  better  served  his 
cause  here  than  by  observing  a  profound  silence.  The  fact  is  that 
the  question  which  he  suggests  is  not  susceptible  of  a  satisfactory 
answer,  on  his  principles.  But  what  he  adds  in  the  next  sentence 
is  so  strangely  inconsistent  with  his  own  principles,  that  we  were 
at  first  inclined  to  think  that  there  must  be  an  error  of  the  press. 
The  words  are,  "  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  is  essential  to  the 
existence  and  happiness  of  a  moral  government."  It  would,  we 
believe,  be  impossible  in  a  single  sentence  to  express  a  sentiment 
more  repugnant  to  the  principles  laid  down  by  this  writer  in 
other  parts  of  his  work,  which  we  have  already  cited.  If  the 
penalty  of  the  law  is  essential  to  the  existence  and  happiness  of  a 
moral  government,  then  it  must  be  maintained — it  must  be  in- 
flicted— it  cannot  be  set  aside.  But  in  the  passages  quoted  before 
he  declares,  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  is  not  inflicted,  that  the 
whole  legal  system  is  suspended,  and  that  the  law  has  the  same 
demand  upon  the  pardoned  sinner  as  though  no  atonement  had  been 
made.  But  we  are  furnished  with  the  following  explanation.  "  The 
only  method  in  which  the  execution  of  this  penalty  can  be  sus- 
pended is  to  furnish  an  adequate,  and  practical,  and  public  substi- 


I 


ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  71 

tute  in  its  place.  For  the  end  of  distributive  justice  must  he  secured, 
and  the  substitute  by  which  these  are  effectually  accomplished  is  to 
be  found  in  that  atonement  which  is  made  in  the  gospel."  This 
sounds  so  much  like  the  orthodox  opinion,  that  we  are  sorry  to  be 
obliged  to  think  that  the  sense  is  very  remote  from  that  which  we 
would  give  them,  if  the  author  had  not  opened  to  our  view  so  fully 
his  whole  theory.  The  meaning  is,  that  while  the  law  receives  no 
fulfilment,  and  its  penalty  is  not  inflicted,  something  else  of  a  differ- 
ent character  is  done,  which  serves  as  a  substitute  for  the  execu- 
tion of  the  penalty  of  the  law.  This  use  of  the  term  substitution 
we  before  noticed.  But  the  supposition'  of  a  substitute  for  law  and 
justice  is  absurd.  There  can  be  no  substitute  for  doing  what  is 
right,  as  there  is  no  substitute  for  truth  or  honesty.  If  the  death  of 
Christ  has  no  relation  to  the  penalty  of  the  law  it  can  never  be  a 
substitute  for  the  infliction  of  that  penalty  ;  and  if  the  penalty  re- 
mains in  full  force,  and  yet  is  suspended,  the  law  is  dishonoured. 
That  opinion  which  derogates  from  the  honour  of  the  law,  re- 
flects dishonour  upon  the  Lawgiver ;  for  the  law  is  the  clearest  ex- 
pression of  the  holiness  and  righteousness  of  his  nature.  Thus  to  set 
aside  the  law  would  be  to  deny  himself.  Christ  came  not  to  de- 
stroy the  law,  but  to  magnify  it  and  make  it  honourable.  The 
exercise  of  mercy,  which  is  alleged  to  be  provided  for  by  this 
scheme,  isjnercy  at  the  expense  of  justice.  By  the  whole  theory 
these  two  attributes  are  exhibited  as  at  variance,  and  the  result 
is  that  mercy  triumphs  over  law  and  justice. 

Another  American  author,*  who,  perhaps,  has  brought  out  the 
features  of  the  new  theory  more  distinctly  than  any  other,  seems  to 
find  some  difficulty  in  reconciling  the  atonement  with  the  justice  of 
God ;  but  he  relieves  himself  by  adopting  explicitly  the  idea  that 
the  atonement  is  nothing  more  than  a  public  exhibition,  or  symboli- 
cal representation  of  the  evil  of  sin,  intended  to  produce  a  moral 
effect  upon  the  universe.  His  words  are,  "  the  only  difficulty  is  to 
understand  how  this  exhibition  was  a  display  of  the  righteousness 
of  God.  To  solve  it  some  have  resorted  to  the  supposition  that 
the  Son  of  God  became  our  sponsor,  and  satisfied  the  demands  of 
the  law  on  us,  by  suffering  in  our  stead.  But  to  this  hypothesis 
there  are  strong  objections"  —  "This  hypothesis,  like  all  others 
which  suppose  the  Son  of  God  to  have  entered  into  a  close  legal 
connexion  with  sinful  men,  and  afterwards  to  have  redeemed  them, 
would  make  the  atonement  a  legal  satisfaction  for  sin ;  and  then 
the  acquittal  would  be  no  pardon  at  all,  but  would  follow  in  the 
regular  course  of  law."  What  else,  we  would  ask,  can  an  atonement 
for  sin  be  than  a  legal  satisfaction  to  the  law  which  has  been  broken  ? 
and  as  to  the  absurd  consequence  supposed  to  follow  on  this  sup- 
position, it  is  merely  imaginary.  Remission  and  redemption  by  a 
full  price  are  nowise  incompatible.  If  a  mediator  delivers  a  crimi- 
nal by  satisfying  the  law,  what  is  justice  to  him,  is  mercy  to  the 

*  Dr.  Murdock. 


72  ON    THE    ATONEMENT. 

offender.  The  greater  the  price  paid,  or  the  sufferings  endured  to 
obtain  forgiveness,  the  more  indebted  is  the  condemned  person  to 
his  deliverer :  but  the  pardon  to  him  is  perfectly  free.  And  whether 
liberation  shall  be  conditional  or  unconditional,  immediate  or  defer- 
red, will  depend  upon  the  agreement  between  the  judge  who  holds 
the  prisoner  in  confinement,  and  the  mediator.  But  this  author, 
having  without  much  ceremony  rejected  all  idea  of  a  Sponsor,  a 
legal  satisfaction,  and  a  legal  connexion  between  Christ  and  his 
people,  brings  out  his  own  scheme  of  the  atonement.  "  We  must, 
therefore,"  says  he,  "  resort  to  some  other  hypothesis.  And  what 
is  more  simple,  and  at  the  same  time  more  satisfactory,  than  that  the 
atonement  was  an  exhibition  or  display — that  is,  it  was  a  symboli- 
cal transaction."  "  The  impression  to  be  made  was  that  God  is  a 
holy  and  righteous  God ;  that  while  inclined  to  mercy  he  cannot 
forget  the  demands  of  justice." 

Now  this  theory  has  no  colour  of  proof  from  Holy  Scripture. 
According  to  this  view  every  idea  of  anything  like  an  atonement 
is  excluded :  an  exhibition  or  display  may  teach  something  or 
make  an  impression,  but  it  is  an  abuse  of  language  to  call  it  an 
atonement.  And  as  to  this  scheme  illustrating  the  justice  or  right- 
eousness of  God,  nothing  could  be  further  from  the  truth.  Accord- 
ing to  this  theory  the  demands  of  both  law  and  justice  are  entirely 
disregarded.  To  remove  this  difficulty  he  says, "  The  justification 
of  behevers  is  not  a  justification  founded  on  the  principles  of  law 
and  distributive  justice."  Did  any  one  before  ever  hear  of  a  sen- 
tence of  justification  which  had  no  relation  to  the  law?  The  very 
notion  of  justification  is  the  sentence  of  a  judge  pronouncing  a 
person  who  has  been  arraigned,  acquitted  according  to  law.  Such 
a  sentence  may  by  an  unjust  judge  be  contrary  to  the  law,  but  that  it 
should  have  no  respect  to  the  principles  of  law  is  a  solecism.  "  For," 
says  he,  "  the  operation  of  Christ's  sacrifice  was  not,  it  appears, 
in  the  regular  course  of  distributive  justice  in  regard  to  individual 
transgressors.  Neither  did  it  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  violated 
law  upon  him.  It  did  not  cancel  any  of  the  claims  of  the  law 
on  us.  The  atonement  was  not  a  legal  or  forensic  transaction.  It 
was  altogether  extrajudicial.  It  was  in  its  nature  simply  an  exhi- 
bition, intended  to  impress  on  all  creatures  a  deep  sense  of  the 
righteousness  of  God  as  a  moral  Governor."  How  a  transaction 
which  proceeds  upon  the  principle  of  setting  aside  the  demands  of 
the  law  and  distributive  justice,  can  serve  as  an  impressive  exhibi- 
tion of  the  righteousness  of  God  as  moral  Governor,  is  a  thing 
utterly  beyond  our  conception.  Certainly  the  difference  between 
the  old  and  new  theory  is  radical.  The  one  holds  that  vindicatory 
justice  is  essential  to  God,  and  that  sin  can  be  pardoned  only  by 
an  adequate  satisfaction  being  made  ;  the  other,  that  God  may,  by  a 
sovereign  act,  pardon  sin  without  any  satisfaction  to  distributive  jus- 
tice. The  one  maintains  that  the  threatenings  of  God  against  sin 
must  be  executed  substantially  ;  that  to  omit  to  execute  the  penalty 
of  the  law  would  be  a  departure  from  truth  and  faithfulness  which 


ON   THE    ATONEMENT.  73 

cannot  without  impiety  be  charged  on  the  infinite  God.  They  be- 
lieve that  Christ  did  actually  suffer,  in  substance,  and  as  literally  as 
was  possible,  the  penalty  which  we  had  incurred ;  that  there  existed 
no  other  reason  why  he  should  suffer  at  all  than  because  law  and  jus- 
tice demanded  that  the  sinner  should  be  punished.  They  believe  that 
he  suffered  death,  because  death  is  the  wages  of  sin  ;  that  he  endured 
such  sufferings,  as,  considering  the  dignity  of  his  person,  fully  exhaust- 
ed the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  fully  satisfied  divine  justice  for  all  the 
sins  of  those  whom  he  had  undertaken  to  redeem.  They  do  not 
think  that  in  bearing  the  penalty  of  the  law,  it  was  necessary  for 
such  a  SUBSTITUTE  to  suffer  the  very  same  sort  of  pains,  or  for  as 
long  a  duration,  as  would  have  been  experienced  by  the  sinner,  if 
the  penalty  had  been  inflicted  on  himself.  It  was  essential  that 
the  Mediator  should  die,  and  that  his  death  should  be  accursed, 
and  that  he  should  endure  inconceivable  agonies  of  soul,  arising 
from  the  pressure  of  divine  wrath,  and  from  the  hiding  of  his 
Father's  face,  as  well  as  from  the  cruelty  and  reproaches  of  those 
who  by  wicked  hands  crucified  and  slew  him.  The  new  theory 
maintains,  that  the  death  and  sufferings  of  Christ  were  merely 
a  ^display  or  exhibition  of  God's  disapprobation  of  sin,  but  by 
no  means  a  satisfaction  to  the  law  and  justice  of  God :  that  this 
law  remains  unsatisfied,  its  claims  being  suspended  by  the  intro- 
duction of  another  system  of  measures.  The  atonement,  there- 
fore, if  it  may  be  so  called,  is  a  device  adopted  to  supply  the  place  of 
the  execution  of  the  law  :  and  even  justification  is  not  a  justifica- 
tion according  to  the  law,  but  an  extrajudicial  act,  not  founded  upon 
the  view  of  a  righteousness  commensurate  to  the  demands  of  the 
law,  but  a  sovereign  act  in  which  no  regard  is  paid  to  the  demands  of 
the  law.  These  demands  remain  and  will  remain  unsatisfied  in 
the  case  of  believers  to  all  eternity.  The  law  pronounces  him 
guilty,  but  the  atonement,  as  thus  understood,  receives  the  guilty 
sinner  out  of  the  hands  of  the  law,  and  obtains  his  pardon,  while 
the  justice  of  God  condemns  him  to  death.  If  these  tw^o  theories 
are  not  radically  different,  we  confess  that  we  have  no  judgment 
in  such  matters.  The  one  insists  upon  a  real  efllicacious  atonement 
or  expiation  ;  the  other  retains  the  name  of  atonement,  but  rejects 
the  thing.  We  ask  the  abettors  of  this  new  scheme,  if  neither  God's 
justice  nor  law  required  to  be  satisfied,  where  was  the  necessity  of 
a  Mediator  ?  On  these  principles  we  are  persuaded,  such  a  neces- 
sity can  never  be  shown.  We  ask  again,  how  God  can  be  just  and 
holy,  and  suffer  sin  to  go  unpunished  ;  for  according  to  this  theory, 
it  is  not  punished  in  the  sinner,  nor  in  the  surety.  We  ask  what 
conceivable  purpose  Christ's  sufferings  and  death  could  have  an- 
swered ?  They  tell  us,  indeed,  that  they  were  intended  to  be  an 
impressive  exhibition  of  the  righteousness  of  God  and  of  the  evil  of 
sin,  and  God's  determination  not  to  suffer  it  to  pass  with  impunity. 
But  it  is  impossible,  upon  their  principles,  that  it  can  answer  any  of 
these  ends.  Instead  of  illustrating  the  justice  of  God,  it  violates  it 
in  several  respects.     First,  it  is  the  punishment  of  an  innocent  , 


74  ON    THE    ATONEMENT. 

person  to  whom  no  guilt  is  imputed.  Secondly,  the  sinner  is 
rescued  from  the  demands  of  justice  without  satisfaction.  And 
thirdly,  the  culprit  justly  condemned  by  the  law  is  justified  in  de- 
spite of  the  sentence  of  the  law.  When  we  see  a  person  suffering 
a  cruel  death  by  the  appointment  of  some  government,  we  learn  no- 
thing from  the  event  until  we  know  why  he  suffers.  If  for  crimes 
which  have  merited  such  a  punishment,  we  are  impressed  with  a 
sense  of  the  just  severity  of  the  government ;  or  if  we  are  informed 
that  with  the  consent  of  the  government  he  voluntarily  suffers  in 
the  place  of  others  who  had  rebelled  against  the  laws,  whatever 
we  may  think  of  the  policy  of  the  measure,  we  are  still  impressed 
with  the  inflexibility  of  the  demands  of  justice,  which  refuses  to  let 
the  guilty  go  free,  unless  some  responsible  person  undergoes  the 
penalty  in  his  stead.  But  if  we  were  assured  that  the  person 
who  suffered  was  neither  punished  for  his  own  crime,  nor  as  a 
substitute  for  the  guilty,  we  should  instantly  pronounce  the  pro- 
ceeding to  be  unjust.  But  what  if  we  should  -be  told  that  the 
government  meant  to  make  an  exhibition  of  the  righteousness  of 
its  laws,  and  the  evil  of  rebellion  by  such  an  infliction  ?  Every 
one  would  pronounce  it  to  be  perfectly  absurd.  The  king  of 
Moab,  when  he  saw  that  his  city  was  likely  to  be  taken,  took  his 
own  son  and  hung  him  on  a  gibbet  from  the  wall  in  the  sight  of  the 
enemy.  But  what  did  it  effect  ?  It  might  indeed  teach  his  own 
desperation  and  folly,  but  nothing  more.  Such  a  transaction  can- 
not prove  that  the  wicked  will  be  certainly  punished.  As  far  as 
actions  speak  it  will  make  the  impression,  that  under  this  govern- 
ment the  innocent  may  suffer.  And  in  the  case  of  our  Saviour, 
while  the  innocent  suffers  the  guilty  are  exempt.  Though  deserv- 
ing to  die  they  are  pardoned  ;  and  instead  of  their  being  punished, 
an  innocent  person  suffers  a  cruel  death.  Surely  this  can  never 
make  the  impression  that  the  guilty  will  in  time  to  come  be  punish- 
ed. The  suspension  of  a  just  penalty  never  can  have  the  effect  of 
convincing  the  universe  that  God  is  determined  to  execute  it. 
The  infliction  of  undeserved  punishment  upon  an  innocent  person 
can  never  make  the  impression  that  God  is  righteous,  or  that  the 
innocent  are  safe.  If  it  be  alleged,  that  an  innocent  person  did 
suffer,  and  the  guilty  escape,  as  all  acknowledge ;  we  reply  that 
according  to  our  theory  the  innocent  suffered  the  penalty  due  to 
the  guilty ;  the  just  for  the  unjust.  In  this  transaction  the  law, 
instead  of  being  disregarded  and  its  penalty  set  aside,  was  glorious- 
ly honoured.  It  received  a  perfect  obedience  from  one  such  as 
never  in  any  other  case  was  subject  to  its  authority.  Christ  was 
made  under  the  law  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law. 
He  fully  bore  its  tremendous  penalty.  The  cup  of  wrath  due 
for  sin  could  not  pass  away  from  him.  fl^e  therefore  submitted  to 
drink  it,  bitter  as  it  was.  "  The  cup  which  my  Father  hath  given 
me,  shall  I  not  drink  it  ?"  Truly  he  did  magnify  the  law  and 
make  it  honourable.  "  Christ,"  says  Paul,  "  hath  redeemed  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  law  being  made  a  curse  for  us."    Was  there  no 


ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  75 

enduring  of  the  penalty  here  ?  What  is  a  curse  but  the  awful 
penalty  which  the  law  denounces  ?  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that 
the  defenders  of  this  scheme  scarcely  ever  appeal  to  scripture  in 
support  of  their  views.  They  depend  on  their  own  reason  to  prove 
that  the  death  of  Christ  was  no  satisfaction  to  law  and  justice,  and 
in  examining  the  objections  we  were  struck  with  the  fact  that  the 
advocates  of  the  new  theory  make  use  of  the  same  arguments  and 
resort  to  the  same  evasions  which  were  employed  by  Faustus 
Socinus  and  his  coadjutors,  in  opposing  the  doctrine  of  atonement, 
in  the  sixteenth  century.  Indeed,  we  see  not  why  he  might  not 
have  called  the  death  of  Christ  an  atonement,  for  similar  reasons 
with  those  which  are  alleged  by  the  abettors  of  this  scheme.  Ac- 
cordingly, John  Taylor  of  Norwich  has  written  a  book  against  the 
orthodox  doctrine,  and  yet  retains  the  word,  and  says,  "  Our 
Lord's  death  took  its  value  not  from  pain  or  suffering,  imputation  or 
punishment,  but  from  obedience  and  goodness,  or  the  most  complete 
character  of  all  virtue  and  righteousness,  the  noblest  of  all  princi- 
ples and  the  highest  perfection  of  intellectual  nature."  On  account 
of  this  exhibition  of  moral  excellence,  he  thinks  that  God  is  pleased 
to  pardon  the  sinner  upon  his  repentance.  And  Dr.  Sykes,  who 
rejects  all  the  orthodox  views  on  this  subject,  still  maintains  what 
he  calls  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  which  is  simply,  that  Christ  died 
to  convince  men  that  God  was  not  angry  with  them,  but  really 
loved  them.  If  the  new  theory  may  properly  be  called  an  atone- 
ment, why  may  not  the  schemes  of  Taylor  and  Sykes  ? 

All  that  we  plead  for  is  that  what  is  plainly  expressed  or  clearly 
implied  in  hundreds  of  texts  of  scripture,  be  admitted  to  be  a  doc- 
trine of  divine  revelation.  As  this  is  the  grand  peculiarity  of  the 
Christian  system,  we  are  bound  to  guard  it  from  perversion,  and  to 
maintain  this  cardinal  truth  in  unadulterated  purity.  This  is  our 
apology  for  occupying  so  many  pages  with  our  own  views  of  the 
necessity  and  nature  of  the  atonement. 


ESSAY  V 


ON  REVIVALS  OF  RELIGION.' 


We  congratulate  the  friends  of  truth  and  order  on  the  appear- 
ance of  these  publications.  We  have  never  had  any  doubt  what 
would  be  the  decision  of  the  public  mind  respecting  the  new  divi- 
nity and  new-measure  system  of  our  day,  if  its  distinctive  features 
could  be  brought  out  to  the  light  and  exposed  to  general  observa- 
tion. History  warrants  us  in  cherishing  this  our  confidence.  The 
truth  is,  that  this  system  contains  but  little  that  is  new.  It  is 
mainly,  if  not  entirely,  composed  of  exploded  errors  and  con- 
demned heresies.  The  church  has  already  once  and  again  pro- 
nounced judgment  upon  it ;  and  we  have  no  doubt  therefore,  that 
the  same  sentence  of  condemnation  will  be  repeated  by  the  Pres- 
byterian church  of  the  present  day,  whenever  the  case  is  fairly 
presented  for  decision.  The  chief  reason  why  the  condemnation 
of  this  system  has  at  all  lingered,  is,  that  its  true  character  has  not 
been  generally  known.  Its  advocates,  when  charged  with  teach- 
ing certain  obnoxious  doctrines,  and,  in  their  religious  meetings, 
violating  the  sobrieties  of  good  sense  as  well  as  of  Christian  order, 
have  evaded  or  denied  the  charge,  and  complained  piteously  of 
misrepresentation.  Much  has  been  done  to  blind  the  minds  of 
those  who  w^ere  not  able  to  bear  the  things  they  had  to  say,  to  the 
undisguised  character  of  the  doctrines  they  have  taught  in  the 
lecture  room  and  the  chapel.  We  rejoice,  therefore,  in  the  publi- 
cation of  Mr.  Finney's  sermons  and  lectures.  The  public  can  now 
learn  what  the  new  system  is,  from  the  exposition  of  one  of  its 
chief  promoters.  He  has  stated  his  own  case,  and  out  of  his  own 
mouth  may  he  now  be  justified  or  condemned. 

The  lectures  on  revivals  were  delivered  by  Mr.  Finney  to  his 
congregation  in  Chatham-street  chapel,  during  the  last  winter. 
They  were  first  published  from  week  to  week,  in  the  columns  of 
the  New  York  Evangelist,  from  reports  furnished  by  the  editor  of 
that  paper.     They  were  subsequently  collected,  and  after  having 

*  Originally  published  in  1835,  in  review  of  the  following  works  :—"  Lectures  on 
Revivals  of  Religion."  By  Charles  G.  Finney.—'*  Sermons  on  Various  Subjects." 
By  Rev.  C.  G.  Finney. 


ON    REVIVALS    OP    RELIGION.  77 

been  submitted  to  the  author  for  correction,  pubUshed  in  a  volume. 
The  work,  we  perceive,  has  already  reached  a  fifth  edition.  Much 
diligence  is  employed  in  efforts  to  give  it  an  extended  circulation. 
It  is  recommended  as  a  suitable  book  for  Sabbath-school  libraries ; 
and  no  pains  are  spared  to  spread  it  abroad  through  the  length  and 
breadth  of  the  land.  Its  friends  evidently  have  a  strong  persuasion 
of  its  extraordinary  merits.  Their  zeal  for  its  circulation  proves 
that  they  consider  it  a  fair  and  able  exposition  of  the  new  system. 

The  sermons  appear  to  be  a  monthly  publication.  We  have 
obtained  seven  of  them,  which  are  all,  we  presume,  that  have  yet 
been  published.  They  discuss  the  several  topics,  "  Sinners  bound 
to  change  their  own  hearts,"  "  How  to  change  your  heart,"  "  Tra- 
ditions of  the  Elders,"  "  Total  Depravity,"  "  Why  Sinners  hate 
God,"  and,  "  God  cannot  please  Sinners."  These  sermons,  with 
the  lectures  on  revivals,  give  a  pretty  full  exhibition  of  Mr.  Finney's 
peculiar  views.  If  we  may  judge  from  the  tiresome  degree  of 
repetition  in  these  productions,  the  perpetual  recurrence  of  the 
same  ideas,  phrases,  and  illustrations,  we  should  suppose  that  he 
can  have  nothing  new  to  say ;  nothing,  at  all  events,  that  would 
materially  add  to,  or  modify,  what  he  has  already  said.  We  may 
consider  ourselves  fairly  in  possession  of  his  system.  To  the 
interpretation  of  that  system  we  shall  now  proceed,  having  it  less 
for  our  object  to  refute,  than  merely  to  exhibit  its  peculiarities. 
We  shall  endeavour  to  gather  up  the  plain,  obvious  meaning  of 
Mr.  Finney's  statements,  taking  it  for  granted,  that  there  is  no  hid- 
den, esoteric  sense  attached  to  them. 

Of  the  literary  merit  of  these  productions  we  have  but  little  to 
say.  The  reporter  deprecates,  or  rather  defies  all  criticism  upon 
their  style,  affirming  that  the  critic  "will  undoubtedly  lose  his 
labour."  No  doubt  he  will,  so  far  as  the  amendment  of  the  author 
is  concerned.  But  the  reformation  of  an  offending  author  is  not 
the  sole  object  of  criticism.  The  reporter  himself  (the  Rev.  Mr. 
Leavitt)  says  of  Mr.  Finney's  language,  that  it  is  "  colloquial  and 
Saxon."  Words  are  but  relative  in  their  meaning.  What  kind  of 
"  colloquies"  the  Rev.  Mr.  Leavitt  may  have  been  used  to,  we  do 
not  pretend  to  know  ;  but  for  ourselves  we  must  say,  that  we  desire 
never  to  have  a  part,  either  as  speakers  or  hearers,  in  any  colloquy 
where  such  language  is  current,  as  Mr.  Finney  often  permits  him- 
self to  employ.  If  his  other  epithet,  Saxon,  means  simply,  not 
English,  we  have  no  objection  to  it.  For,  surely,  it  has  not  often 
fallen  to  our  lot  to  read  a  book,  in  which  the  proprieties  of  gram- 
mar as  well  as  the  decencies  of  taste  were  so  often  and  so  need- 
lessly violated  ;  and  in  which  so  much  that  may  not  inappropriately 
be  termed  slang  was  introduced.  But  we  have  higher  objects 
before  us  than  detailed  criticism  upon  Mr.  Finney's  style.  We 
should  not  have  made  any  allusion  to  it,  but  that  we  deemed  it 
worth  a  passing  notice,  as  forming  part  and  parcel  of  the  coarse, 
radical  spirit  of  the  whole  system. 

We  proceed  to  examine,  in  the  first  place,  the  doctrines  of  this 


78  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

new  system.  Mr.  Finney  does  not  pretend  to  teach  a  slightly 
modified  form  of  old  doctrine.  He  is  far  from  claiming  substantial 
agreement  with  the  wise  and  good  among  the  orthodox  of  the  past 
and  present  generation.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  a  very  peculiar 
self-isolation  about  him.  Through  all  his  writings  there  is  found 
an  ill  concealed  claim  to  be  considered  as  one  called  and  anointed 
of  God,  to  do  a  singular  and  great  work.  There  is  scarcely  a  re- 
cognition of  any  fellow-labourers  in  the  same  field  with  him.  One 
might  suppose  indeed,  that  he  considered  himself  the  residuary 
legatee  of  all  the  prophetic  and  apostolical  authority  that  has  ever 
been  in  the  world,  so  arrogantly  does  he  assume  all  knowledge  to 
himself,  so  loftily  does  he  arraign  and  rebuke  all  other  ministers 
of  the  gospel.  He  stands  alone  in  the  midst  of  abounding  degene- 
racy, the  only  one  who  has  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal.  The 
whole  world  is  wrong,  and  he  proposes  to  set  them  right.  Minis- 
ters and  professors  of  religion  have  hitherto  been  ignorant  what 
truths  should  be  taught  to  promote  revivals  of  religion,  and  he 
oflfers  to  impart  to  them  infallible  information. 

It  is  true,  in  his  preface,  he  disclaims  all  pretensions  to  infalli- 
bility, but  in  his  lectures,  he  more  than  once  substantially  assumes 
it.  He  tells  his  hearers,  in  relation  to  promoting  revivals,  "  If  you 
will  go  on  to  do  as  I  say,  the  results  will  he  just  as  certain  as  they 
are  when  the  farmer  breaks  up  a  fallow  field,  and  mellows  it,  and 
sows  his  grain."  He  speaks  repeatedly  of  the  "  endless  train  of 
fooleries"  the  " absurdities"  the  " nonsense"  which,  up  to  his  time, 
have  been  taught  both  in  private  and  from  the  pulpit.  He  declares, 
*'  there  is  only  here  and  there  a  minister  who  knows  how  to  probe 
the  church,"  &c.  "  This  is  a  point  where  almost  all  ministers  fail." 
"  When  /  entered  the  ministry  so  much  had  been  said  about  the 
doctrine  of  election  and  sovereignty,  that  I  found  it  was  the  univer- 
sal hiding  place,  both  of  sinners  and  the  church,  that  they  could 
not  do  anything,  or  could  not  obey  the  gospel.  And  wherever  I 
went,  I  found  it  necessary  to  demolish  these  refuges  of  lies."  *'  There 
is  and  has  been  for  ages,  a  striking  defect  in  exhibiting  this  most 
important  subject."  "  For  many  centuries  but  little  of  the  real 
gospel  has  been  preached."  "  The  truth  is,  that  very  little  of  the 
gospel  has  come  out  upon  the  world,  for  these  hundreds  of  years, 
without  being  clogged  and  obscured  by  false  theology."  What 
can  be  more  evident  than  that  Mr.  Finney  considers  himself  a  great 
reformer  ?  He  comes  forth  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  clearing 
away  the  errors  by  which  the  true  gospel  has  been  so  overlaid  as 
to  destroy  its  efficiency.  He  comes  to  declare  new  truths,  as  well 
as  to  unfold  new  methods  of  presenting  them  to  the  mind. 

The  first  of  these  new  doctrines  to  which  we  call  the  attention 
of  our  readers,  has  relation  to  the  government  of  God.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  a  few  years  since.  Dr.  Taylor,  with  some  other 
divines,  publicly  announced  and  defended  the  proposition,  that  God 
could  not  prevent  the  introduction  of  sin  in  a  moral  systert).  At 
least  he  was  very  generally,  if  not  universally,  understood  to  teach 


I 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  79 

this  proposition.  And  it  is  strange,  if  not  actually  unprecedented, 
that  a  w^riter  of  an  honest  and  sound  mind,  understanding  the 
language  he  employs,  and  having  it  for  his  serious  purpose  to 
convey  to  his  readers  certain  important  information,  should  be 
misunderstood  as  to  the  main  purport  of  his  message  by  those  best 
qualified,  from  education  and  otherwise,  to  comprehend  it. 

But  Dr.  Taylor  did  complain  that  he  was  misunderstood.  He 
insists  that  he  did  not  intend  to  teach  that  God  could  not  prevent 
the  existence  of  moral  evil,  but  only  that  it  is  impossible  to 
prove  that  He  could  prevent  it.  His  object  was  to  unsettle 
belief  in  all  existing  theories  upon  this  subject,  and  then  to  substi- 
tute this  negative  one  in  their  place  ;  in  other  words,  to  inculcate 
absolute  scepticism  upon  this  point.  This  is  the  ground  now 
occupied  by  the  New  Haven  divines.  We  fear,  therefore,  that 
they  will  be  alarmed  by  the  position  which  Mr.  Finney  has  taken. 
He  has  evidently  neglected,  since  his  return  from  his  foreign  tour, 
to  post  up  his  knowledge.  He  has  not  acquainted  himself  with 
the  improvements  made  during  his  absence.  He  teaches,  without 
any  qualification,  the  doctrine  which  the  New  Haven  school  was  at 
first  understood  to  teach.  He  complains  that  sinners  "  take  it  for 
granted  that  the  two  governments  which  God  exercises  over  the 
universe,  moral  and  providential,  might  have  been  so  administered 
as  to  have  produced  universal  holiness  throughout  the  universe." 
This,  he  says,  is  a  ^^  gratuitous  and  wicked  assumption."  It  is 
wicked,  then,  to  believe  that  God  could  have  produced  universal 
holiness.  Mr.  Finney  further  adds,  "  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  God  so  administers  his  providential  government,  as  to  produce 
upon  the  whole,  the  highest  and  most  salutary  practicable  influence 
in  favour  of  holiness."  This  sentiment,  it  is  true,  is  susceptible  of 
a  correct  interpretation  through  the  ambiguity  of  the  word  practi- 
cable. But  another  quotation  will  make  it  evident  that  he  means 
this  word  to  include  nothing  more  than  the  resisting  power  of  the 
human  will.  "  The  sanctions  of  His  law  are  absolutely  infinite  : 
in  them  he  has  embodied  and  held  forth  the  highest  possible 
motives  to  obedience."  "  It  is  vain  to  talk  of  His  omnipotence 
preventing  sin :  if  infinite  motives  will  not  prevent  it,  it  cannot 
be  prevented  under  a  moral  government ;  and  to  maintain  the 
contrary  is  absurd  and  a  contradiction."  A  more  explicit  and 
confident  statement  of  this  doctrine  could  hardly  be  given.  It 
is  absurd  and  contradictory  to  maintain  that  God  could  have 
prevented  the  introduction  of  sin  into  our  world.  The  only 
semblance  of  an  argument  which  Mr.  Finney  urges  in  support  of 
this  opinion  is,  "  that  mind  must  be  governed  by  moral  power, 
while  matter  is  governed  by  physical  power."  "  If  to  govern 
mind  were  the  same  as  to  govern  matter — if  to  sway  the  intellec- 
tual world  were  accomplished  by  the  same  power  that  sways  the 
physical  universe,  then  indeed  it  would  be  just  from  the  physical 
omnipotence  of  God,  and  from  the  existence  of  sin,  to  infer  that  God 
prefers  its  existence  to  holiness  in  its  stead."    Again  he  says, "  To 


I 


80  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

maintain  that  the  /)%5ica/ omnipotence  of  God  can  prevent  sin  is  to 
talk  nonsense."  We  see  not  the  least  ground  for  this  distinction 
between  the  moral  and  physical  power  of  God  ;  nor  do  we  believe 
that  Mr.  Finney  himself  can  attach  any  definite  meaning  to  his 
favourite  phrase,  "  physical  omnipotence."  By  the  omnipotence  of 
God  we  understand  a  power  to  do  anything  without  those  hindrances 
and  restrictions  by  which  we  and  all  created  beings  are  beset.  It 
must  be  the  same  power  which  sways  the  intellectual  and  physical 
universe,  unless  we  are  to  make  as  many  different  species  of  power 
as  there  are  objects  upon  which  it  may  be  exerted.  This  distinction, 
however,  were  it  well  founded,  would  avail  Mr.  Finney  nothing  in 
defence  of  his  position.  The  power  of  God,  by  whatever  name 
called,  can  be  limited  in  its  exercise  only  by  the  laws  which  He 
has  himself  immutably  fixed.  The  power  of  the  Creator  was  with- 
out any  limit ; — the  power  of  the  Governor  labours  under  no  other 
restrictions  than  the  ordinances  of  the  Creator  have  imposed  upon 
it.  It  is  often  said  that  God  cannot  achieve  impossibilities,  such  as 
to  make  a  body  exist  in  several  places  at  the  same  time.  All  such 
limitations  of  the  divine  power  are  found  in  those  relations  and  pro- 
perties of  things  which  He  has  himself  established.  A  body  cannot 
be  made  to  exist  in  several  places  at  once,  for  if  it  could  it  would 
no  longer  be  a  body.  So  in  the  nature  of  man  we  may  trace  cer- 
tain properties  and  laws,  which  lay  a  similar  restriction,  if  so  it 
may  be  called,  upon  the  exercise  of  the  divine  power.  God  cannot 
make  a  sinner  happy,  while  he  continues  a  sinner,  for  He  has 
already  so  made  man  that  his  happiness  must  come  to  him  as  the 
consequence  of  the  right  action  of  his  powers,  and  he  would  cease 
to  be  man  if  this  law  of  his  nature  were  altered.  Now  is  there 
any  similar  restriction  in  the  nature  of  moral  agency  ?  Does  it 
enter  into  our  notion  of  a  moral  agent,  and  go  to  make  up  the  defi- 
nition of  one,  that  he  cannot  be  subjected  to  any  other  influence  than 
that  of  motive  ?  Suppose  that  God  should,  in  some  inscrutable  way, 
so  act  upon  his  will  as  to  dispose  it  to  yield  to  the  influence  of 
motive,  would  such  action  make  him  cease  to  be  a  moral  agent  ? 
If  not,  we  have  no  right  to  deny  the  power  of  God  to  effect 
it  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  that  His  power  can  be  re- 
strained by  anything  exterior  to  himself.  The  only  bounds  be- 
yond which  it  cannot  pass  must  be  those  that  have  been  established 
Dy  His  own  nature,  or  His  previous  acts.  Unless  he  has  so  made 
moral  agents  that  it  is  a  contradiction  in  terms  to  assert  that  they 
can  be  influenced  in  any  other  way  than  by  motive,  it  is  in  the 
highest  degree  unwarrantable  and  presumptuous  to  deny  that  God 
can  act  upon  them  by  other  means.  But  a  moral  agent,  while 
possessed  of  the  necessary  faculties,  and  not  forced  to  act  contrary 
to  his  will,  or  to  will  contrary  to  his  prevailing  inclinations  and 
desires,  remains  a  moral  agent  still.  Would,  then,  the  operation  of 
any  other  influence  than  that  of  motive  upon  him,  destroy  his  liberty 
of  action  or  his  freedom  of  will  ?  Certainly  not.  And  as  certainly 
no  man  can  deny  that  God  can  influence  men  as  he  pleases  without 


I 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  81 

thereby  denying  His  omnipotence.  A  more  groundless,  gratuitous 
assumption  could  not  well  be  found,  than  Mr.  Finney  has  made  in 
asserting  that  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  affect  his  moral  subjects 
in  any  other  way  than  by  motive. 

Let  it  be  observed  that  we  use  the  word  motive^  as  Mr.  Finney 
himself  has  evidently  used  it,  to  denote  simply  the  objective  consi- 
derations presented  to  the  mind  as  they  are  in  themselves,  without 
taking  into  account  the  state  of  the  mind  in  relation  to  those  con- 
siderations. This  is  the  only  sense  of  the  word  in  which  it  can  be 
at  all  maintained  that  "  infinite  motives  "  have  been  urged  upon 
man  for  the  prevention  of  sin  and  the  promotion  of  holy  obedience. 
If  the  state  of  the  mind,  which  always  determines  the  apparent 
qualities  of  the  object,  be  included,  as  it  generally  is,  in  the  term 
motive,  then  it  is  not  true  that  the  mind  could  resist  "  infinite  mo- 
tives." In  this  sense  of  the  word  it  is  self-evident  that  the 
will  must  always  be  determined  by  the  strongest  motive.  An 
"  infinite  motive,"  by  which  can  be  meant  only  a  motive  infinitely 
strong,  or  stronger  than  any  other  we  can  conceive  of,  would  of 
course  prevail  and  carry  the  will  with  it.  Then  it  would  be  just 
to  infer,  from  infinite  motives  having  been  presented  to  bear  man 
onward  in  the  paths  of  holy  obedience,  that  God  had  done  all  that 
he  could  to  prevent  sin.  And  then  too  it  would  be  impossible  that 
any  sin  could  exist,  or  that  sin  could  ever  have  entered  our  world. 

But  granting,  what  we  have  shown  to  be  the  gratuitous  assump- 
tion, that  God  cannot  influence  men  in  any  other  way  than  by  the 
objective  presentation  of  truth  to  the  mind,  Mr.  Finney  has 
given  us  no  reasons  for  adopting  the  opinion  that, "  He  has  done  all 
that  the  nature  of  the  case  admitted  to  prevent  the  existence  of  sin," 
while  we  can  see  many  reasons  which  forbid  us  to  receive  it. 
The  state  of  the  question,  as  we  are  now  about  to  put  it,  in  con- 
formity with  Mr.  Finney's  representations,  does  indeed  involve 
the  three  gratuitous  assumptions,  that  God  could  not  have 
made  man  a  njoral  agent  and  yet  give  him  a  greater  degree 
of  susceptibility  of  impression  from  the  truth  than  he  now  pos- 
sesses ;  that  man  being  as  he  is,  God  could  not  have  devised  any 
external  considerations  to  affect  him,  in  addition  to  those  which 
are  actually  placed  before  his  mind  ;  and  lastly,  that  man  and  the 
truth  both  being  as  they  are,  God  cannot  reach  and  move  the  mind  of 
man  in  any  other  way  than  by  the  truth.  These  are  by  no  means 
axioms,  and  Mr.  Finney  would  be  sadly  perplexed  in  the  attempt 
to  prove  any  one  of  them.  But,  for  the  sake  of  showing  that  even 
with  these  bold  and  barefaced  assumptions  he  cannot  maintain  his 
position,  we  will  admit  them  all.  Man  could  not  have  been  a  mo- 
ral agent  had  he  been  more  yielding  to  the  truth  than  he  now  is. 
"  Infinite  motives"  to  obedience  have  been  provided  ;  by  which,  as 
we  have  already  shown,  can  be  meant  only  that  all  the  tfnith  which 
could  possibly  affect  the  human  mind  has  been  revealed  to  it.  And 
thirdly,  man  cannot  be  moved  but  by  the  truth.  The  "  nature  of 
the  case"  being  supposed  to  demand  all  these  admissions,  does  it 

6 


S^  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

still  follow  that  God  has  done  all  that  he  could  to  prevent  the  exist- 
ence of  sin  ?  Mr.  Finney  himself  shall  ansv^^er  this  question.  His 
theory  of  the  nature  of  divine  influence  is,  that  the  Spirit  "  gets 
and  keeps  the  attention  of  the  mind'* — "  He  pours  the  expostula- 
tion (of  the  preacher)  home" — He  keeps  the  truth,  which  would 
else  have  been  suffered  to  slip  away,  "  in  warm  contact  with  the 
mind."  Here  is  of  course  the  admission,  and  we  are  glad  he  is 
willing  to  concede  so  much  power  to  his  Maker,  that  God  can  gain 
the  attention  of  the  mind,  and  keep  before  it  and  in  contact  with 
it,  any  or  all  of  the  '*  infinite  motives"  which  he  has  provided  to 
deter  from  sin.  Connect  this  admission  with  another  class  of 
passages,  in  which  Mr.  Finney  teaches  that,  "  When  an  object  is 
before  the  mind,  the  corresponding  emotion  will  rise,"  and  who 
does  not  see  in  the  resulting  consequence  a  glaring  inconsistency 
with  the  doctrine  that  God  has  done  all  that  he  can  to  prevent  the 
existence  of  sin  ?  To  make  this  more  plain,  we  will  take  the  case 
of  Adam's  transgression,  of  which  Mr.  Finney  has,  out  of  its  con- 
nexion with  the  subject  we  are  now  discussing,  given  us  the  ration- 
ale. "  Adam,"  he  says,  "  was  perfectly  holy,  but  not  infinitely  so. 
As  his  preference  for  God  was  not  infinitely  strong,  it  was  possible 
that  it  might  be  changed,  and  we  have  the  melancholy  fact  writ* 
ten  in  characters  that  cannot  be  misunderstood,  on  every  side  of 
us,  that  an  occasion  occurred  on  which  he  actually  changed  it. 
Satan,  in  the  person  of  the  serpent,  presented  a  temptation  of  a 
very  peculiar  character.  It  was  addressed  to  the  constitutional 
appetites  of  both  soul  and  body ;  to  the  appetite  for  food  in  the 
body,  and  for  knowledge  in  the  mind.  These  appetites  were  con- 
stitutional ;  they  were  not  in  themselves  sinful,  but  their  unlawful 
indulgence  was  sin."  The  temptation  in  this  case  was  the  motive 
addressed  to  Adam's  constitutional  appetites.  The  reason  why 
this  motive  prevailed  was,  that  it  was  kept  before  the  mind  to  the 
exclusion  of  adverse  considerations.  The  emotions  of  desire 
towards  the  forbidden  fruit  were  not  unlawful  until  they  had  be- 
come suflfiiciently  strong  to  lead  Adam  to  violate  the  command  of 
his  Maker.  If,  then,  just  at  the  point  of  unlawfulness,  the  atten- 
tion of  Adam's  mind  had  been  diverted  from  the  forbidden  fruit  to 
the  consideration  of  God's  excellency  and  His  command,  "  the 
corresponding  emotion"  would  have  arisen,  and  he  would  not  have 
sinned.  But  the  Spirit  has  power  to  "  get  and  keep  the  attention 
of  the  mind."  Certainly  then  He  could  have  directed  the  atten- 
tion of  Adam's  mind  to  those  known  truths,  though  at  the  moment 
unthought  of,  which  would  have  excited  the  "  corresponding  emo- 
tions" of  reverence  for  God,  and  preserved  him  thus  in  holy  obe- 
dience. 

But  though  Mr.  Finney  holds  forth  the  views  here  given  of  the 
Spirit's  agency  in  presenting  truth  to  the  mind,  it  would  evidently 
be  a  great  relief  to  his  theological  scheme  if  he  were  fairly  rid  of 
the  doctrine  of  divine  influence.  The  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
comes  in  only  by  the  way,  if  we  may  so  speak,  in  his  account  of 


ON   REVIVALS    OF   RELIGION. 


sr 


the  sinner's  regeneration  and  conversion.  AVe  will  cast  away  this 
doctrine,  therefore — we  will  grant  him  even  more  than  he  dares  to 
ask — and  still  his  position  is  untenable,  that  God  has  done  all  that 
he  can  to  prevent  the  existence  of  sin.  Before  he  can  demand  our 
assent  to  this  proposition,  he  must  prove,  in  the  case  already  pre- 
sented, that  God  could  not  have  prevented  the  entrance  of  Satan 
into  the  garden.  Admitting  that  the  volitions  of  Satan  were  be- 
yond the  control  of  his  Maker,  he  must  investigate  the  relation  of 
spirit  to  space,  and  prove  that  it  was  impossible  for  God  to  have 
erected  physical  barriers  over  which  this  mighty  fiend  could  not 
have  passed.  He  must  show  that  it  was  impossible  for  God  so  to 
have  arranged  merely  providential  circumstances,  that  our  first 
parents  should  have  been  kept  out  of  the  way  of  the  tempter,  or 
that  the  force  of  the  temptation  should  have  been  at  all  diminished. 
Until  he  has  proved  all  this,  and  then  proved  that  his  three  as- 
sumptions which  we  have  pointed  out  are  true,  we  must  prefer  the 
"  absurdity"  and  "  nonsense"  of  rejecting  his  doctrine,  to  the  wis- 
dom of  receiving  it. 

The  argument  thus  far  has  been  a  direct  one,  and  we  should  not 
fear  to  leave  it  as  it  now  stands.  But  we  cannot  refrain  from  ad- 
verting to  some  of  the  consequences  of  the  doctrine  we  have  been 
examining.  If  God  has  done  all  that  he  can  to  prevent  the  exist- 
ence of  sin,  and  has  not  succeeded  in  his  efforts,  then  must  he  have 
been  disappointed.  If  he  cannot  control  at  pleasure  the  subjects 
of  his  moral  kingdom,  then  must  he  be  continually  and  unavoidably 
subject  to  grief  from  the  failure  of  his  plans.  Instead  of  working 
all  things  according  to  his  good  pleasure,  he  can  do  only  what  the 
nature  of  the  case  will  permit, — that  is,  what  his  creatures  will 
allow  him  to  do.  He  in  whose  hands  are  the  hearts  of  all  men, 
and  who  turns  them  as  the  rivers  of  waters  are  turned,  is  thus 
made  a  petitioner  at  the  hands  of  his  subjects  for  permission  to 
execute  his  plans  an(f  purposes.  Accordingly  we  find  Mr.  Finney 
using  such  language  as  this :  "  God  has  found  it  necessary  to  take 
advantage  of  the  excitability  there  is  in  mankind,  to  produce  pow- 
erful excitements  among  them  before  he  can  lead  them  to  obey." 
He  speaks  of  a  "  state  of  things,  in  which  it  is  impossible  for  God 
or  man  to  promote  religion  but  by  powerful  excitements."  And 
of  course  there  may  be  states  of  things  in  which  neither  by  excite- 
ments nor  by  any  other  means  will  God  be  able  to  effect  the  results 
he  desires.  Then  may  we  rightly  teach,  as  some  at  least  of  our 
modern  reformers  have  taught,  that  God,  thwarted  in  his  wishes 
and  plans  by  the  obstinacy  of  the  human  will,  is  literally  grieved 
by  the  perverse  conduct  of  men ;  and  sinners  may  properly  be 
exhorted  as  they  have  been  to  forsake  their  sins  from  compassion 
for  their  suffering  Maker  !  It  is  a  sufficient  condemnation  of  any 
doctrine  that  it  leads  by  an  immediate  and  direct  inference  to  so 
appalling  a  result  as  this.  We  know  of  nothing  which  ought  more 
deeply  to  pain  and  shock  the  pious  mind.  If  the  perverseness  of 
man  has  been  able  in  one  instance  to  prevent  God  from  accom- 


84  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

plishing  what  he  preferred,  then  may  it  in  any  instance  obstruct 
the  working  of  his  preferences.  Where,  then,  is  the  infinite  and 
immutable  blessedness  of  the  Deity  ?  We  cannot  contemplate  this 
doctrine,  thus  carried  out  into  its  lawful  consequences,  without  un- 
speakable horror  and  dismay.  The  blessedness  of  the  Deity  !  what 
pious  mind  has  not  been  accustomed  to  find  in  it  the  chief  source 
of  its  own  joy  ?  Who  does  not  habitually  turn  from  the  dis- 
quieting troubles  and  scenes  of  misery  that  distress  him  here,  to 
"  drink  of  the  river  of  God's  pleasures  ?"  Who  can  bear  the 
thought  that  the  infinitely  holy  and  benevolent  God  should  be  less 
than  infinitely  happy  ?  We  see  not  how  any  heart  that  loves  God 
can  feel  happy  itself,  unless  it  believes  him  to  be,  as  he  deserves  to 
be,  infinitely  blessed.  Nor  can  we  find  any  security  for  the  felicity 
of  the  creature  but  in  the  perfect  and  unchangeable  felicity  of  the 
Creator.  If  God,  therefore,  be  as  this  doctrine  represents  him,  un- 
able to  produce  states  of  things  which  he  prefers,  and  if  his  benevo- 
lent feelings  are  thus  continually  exposed  to  grief  from  obstructions 
to  their  operation,  the  voice  of  wailing  and  despair  should  break 
forth  from  all  his  moral  subjects.  We  can  see,  indeed,  but  little  to 
decide  our  choice  between  such  a  God  as  this  and  no  God. 

Another  consequence  of  this  doctrine  is  that  God  cannot  confirm 
angels  and  saints  in  holiness.  If  he  could  not  prevent  the  introduc- 
tion of  sin  into  our  world,  we  see  not  upon  what  principles  we  are 
entitled  to  aflfirm  that  he  can  prevent  its  re-introduction  into  hea- 
ven. We  see  not  how  he  can  at  any  time  hinder  the  standard  of 
rebellion  from  being  yet  once  more  uplifted  among  the  bright  and 
joyous  throng  that  now  cast  their  crowns  at  his  feet.  We  are  per- 
fectly aware  of  the  answer  which  Mr.  Finney  will  make  to  this 
objection.  He  will  contend  that  the  additional  motives  furnished 
by  the  introduction  of  sin,  such  as  the  visible  and  dreadful  punish- 
ment of  the  sinner,  and  the  display  of  the  divine  character  thereby 
afforded,  are  suflicient  to  enable  God  by  the  use  of  them,  together 
with  the  means  and  appliances  previously  existing,  to  confirm  holy 
beings  in  holiness.  Now,  independently  of  other  insuperable  objec- 
tions to  this  as  a  sufficient  reply,  how  does  it  consist  with  that  other 
part  of  the  scheme,  that "  infinite  motives"  had  been  already  arrayed 
against  the  introduction  of  sin  ?  If  these  motives  were  infinite, 
then  no  addition  could  possibly  be  made  to  them.  We  leave  Mr. 
Finney  to  reconcile  this  contradiction,  or  to  admit  that  we  have 
no  reason  to  expect  that  the  gates  of  heaven  will  be  barred  against 
sin. 

This  doctrine  also  takes  away  from  the  sinner  all  just  ground  for 
the  dread  of  everlasting  punishment.  Its  advocates,  we  know,  have 
contended  that  it  is  the  only  position  from  which  Universalism  can 
be  effectively  assailed.  But  if,  when  man  was  tempted  to  sin  by 
so  insignificant  a  motive  as  the  forbidden  fruit,  while  "  infinite  mo- 
tives" were  drawing  him  back,  God  could  not  prevent  him  from 
yielding,  it  must  surely  be  impossible  for  him  to  prevent  the  sinner 
in  the  other  world  from  obeying  the  impulse  of  the  infinite  motives 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  85 

which,  more  strongly  there  than  here,  will  urge  him  to  holiness. 
The  sinner,  then,  may  dismiss  his  apprehensions  of  the  everlasting 
experience  of  the  miseries  of  a  wicked  heart.  If  God  could  not 
prevent  Adam  from  sinning,  under  the  influence  of  a  small  motive, 
there  is  no  reason  to  fear  that  he  can  prevent  any  inhabitant  of  hell 
from  becoming  holy,  under  the  influence  of  infinite  motives.  We 
have  dwelt  upon  this  subject  at  greater  length  than  was  at  first  in- 
tended. Our  excuse  is,  that  the  question  at  issue  is  a  very  serious 
and  important  one  ;  and  the  views  of  it  presented  by  Mr.  Finney 
seem  to  be  so  dishonouring  to  the  character  of  God,  as  well  as 
subversive  of  some  of  the  most  important  truths  of  religion,  that 
they  should  be  carefully  examined.  Had  our  object  been  simply 
to  criticise,  Mr.  Finney  might  have  been  more  briefly  despatched. 
There  is  in  his  pages  a  surpassingly  rich  treasure  of  contradictions, 
which  might  at  every  turn  have  famished  us  with  an  argumentum 
ad  hominem,  had  we  been  disposed  to  avail  ourselves  of  it.  But 
we  have  felt  that  the  matter  in  hand  was  of  too  grave  and  weighty 
an  import  to  be  thus  managed. 

We  invite  the  attention  of  our  readers ,  in  the  next  place,  to  Mr. 
Finney's  views  of  the  nature  of  sin,  depravity  and  regeneration. 
He  contends  that  all  sin  consists  in  acts,  and  assures  us  that 
those  who  teach  otherwise  are  guilty  of  "  tempting  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  and  of  a  "  stupid,  not  to  say  wilful  perversion  of  the  Word 
of  God."  He  deems  it  absurd  beyond  expression  to  suppose  that 
there  can  be  a  sinful  disposition  prior  to  sinful  acts  ;  nay,  he 
solemnly  affirms  that  "  millions  upon  millions  have  gone  down  to 
hell,"  in  consequence  of  the  doctrine  of  what  he  is  pleased  to 
call  "  physical  depravity"  having  been  so  extensively  taught.  He 
seldom  approaches  this  subject  without  breaking  out  in  some  such 
paroxysm  as  the  following :  "  O  the  darkness  and  confusion,  and 
utter  nonsense  of  that  view  of  depravity  which  exhibits  it  as  some- 
thing lying  back,  and  the  cause  of  all  actual  transgression  !" 

Our  readers  will  soon  be  able  to  judge  for  themselves  whether 
Mr.  Finney  has  cleared  away  any  of  the  darkness  which  rests 
upon  this  subject. 

In  the  prosbcution  of  our  inquiries  into  the  nature  of  sin,  two 
questions  very  naturally  present  themselves  for  decision;  first, > 
whether  there  can  exist  anything  like  what  has  been  called  dispo- 
sition, distinct  from  mental  acts ;  and  secondly,  whether,  if  such 
an  attribute  of  mind  can  and  does  exist,  it  may  be  said  to  possess 
any  moral  character.  Mr.  Finney,  with  much  convulsive  violence 
of  language,  continually  denies  that  there  can  be  any  such  thing  as 
a  mental  disposition,  in  the  sense  in  which  we  have  used  the  word. 
He  employs  the  term,  it  is  true,  but  he  says  he  means  by  it  a 
mental  act,  and  that  it  is  nonsensical  to  attach  to  it  any  other  mean- 
ing. His  arguments  against  the  possibility  of  the  existence  of  mental 
dispositions,  apart  from  mental  acts,  may  be  briefly  despatched  ;  for 
we  do  not  reckon  among  the  arguments  his  violent  outcries  of  dark- 
ness, confusion,  absurdity,  nonsense,  doctrine  of  devils,  &c.,  nor 


86  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

his  assertions  that  God  himself  cannot  lead  the  sinner  to  repentance 
without  first  dispossessing  him  of  the  erroneous  notion  that  his 
nature  as  well  as  his  conduct  needs  to  be  changed.  All  the 
arguments  on  the  point  now  before  us,  that  lie  scattered  through 
his  many  pages,  may  be  reduced  to  two.  It  is  impossible,  he 
contends,  to  conceive  of  the  existence  of  a  disposition  of  mind  ;  and 
affain,  if  there  be  a  disposition  distinct  from  the  faculties  and  acts 
01  the  mind,  it  must  form  a  part  of  the  substance  of  the  mind,  and 
hence  follow  physical  depravity  and  physical  regeneration  with 
all  their  horrid  train  of  evils.  When  he  asserts  the  impossibility 
of  conceiving  of  a  disposition  of  mind,  we  suppose  he  means  that 
it|is  impossible  to  frame  an  image  of  it,  or  form  a  picture  in  which 
this  disposition  shall  stand  visible  to  the  mind's  eye.  It  is  only 
in  this  sense  that  his  assertion  is  true.  It  is  true  that  we  cannot 
form  such  a  conception  of  a  mental  disposition,  but  we  will  not 
insult  the  common  sense  of  our  readers  by  attempting  to  prove 
that  this  is  no  argument  against  its  existence. 

The  other  argument  on  which  Mr.  Finney  relies  to  prove  the 
non-existence  of  any  disposition  of  mind,  is  that  if  there  be  any 
such  thing  it  must  form  a  part  of  the  substance  of  the  mind,  it  must 
be  incorporated  with  the  very  substance  ofour  being,  with  many  other 
phrases  of  like  import.  Hence  he  charges  those  who  teach  that  there 
are  such  dispositions,  and  that  they  possess  a  moral  character,  with 
teaching  physical  depravity,  and  representing  "  God  as  an  infinite 
tyrant."  He  avers,  in  a  great  variety  of  forms,  that  their  preaching 
has  a  direct  and  legitimate  tendency  to  lull  the  sinner  in  his  secur- 
ity, to  make  men  of  sense  turn  away  in  disgust  from  such  absurd 
exhibitions  of  the  Gospel,  and  to  people  hell  with  inhabitants. 
These  are  grave  charges  ;  and  as,  if  substantiated,  they  would  affect 
the  fair  fame  and  destroy  the  usefulness  of  nine-tenths  of  the  minis- 
ters of  the  church  to  which  Mr.  Finney  belongs,  so,  if  groundless, 
Mr.  Finney  must  be  regarded  as  a  slanderer  of  his  brethren,  guilty 
and  odious  in  proportion  to  the  enormity  of  the  unsustained  charges 
against  them.  In  one  respect  at  least  Mr.  Finney  is  guilty  of  bring- 
ing false  accusations  against  his  brethren.  He  continually  repre- 
sents them  as  holding  and  teaching  all  his  own  inferences  from  their 
doctrines.  This  is  more  than  uncharitable  ;  it  is  calumnious.  He 
has  a  perfect  right  to  develope  the  absurdities  of  what  he  calls 
physical  depravity,  and  present  them  as  so  many  reasons  for  re- 
jecting any  doctrine  which  can  be  proved  to  result  in  such  conse- 
quences ;  but  he  has  no  right  to  endeavour  to  cast  the  reproach  of 
teaching  these  inferred  absurdities  upon  men  who  have  uniformly, 
and  if  more  decently  yet  not  less  strongly  than  himself,  disclaimed 
them.  But  we  contend  that  these  absurdities  do  not  lawfully  flow 
from  the  doctrine  that  the  mind  has  tastes  and  dispositions  distinct 
from  its  faculties  and  acts.  It  is  easy  to  show,  in  contradiction  to 
Mr.  Finney,  that  it  may  possess  such  attributes,  which  nevertheless 
will  not  form  any  part  of  the  substance  of  the  mind.  Nay,  we  can 
make  Mr.  Finney  himself  prove  it.     In  one  of  his  sermons,  where 


'on  revivals  of  religion.  /Xt^ ^     """^/-X 

he  has  lost  sight  for  a  brief  space  of  physical  depravity,  he  speaks  ^i  ^         A 
on  this  wise  :  "  Love,  when  existing  in  the  form  of  volition^  is  a  f  .' 

simple  preference  of  the  mind  for  God  and  the  things  of  religion  ^  ^0 
to  everything  else.  This  preference  may  and  often  does  exist  in 
the  mind,  so  entirely  separate  from  what  is  termed  emotion  or 
feeling,  that  we  may  be  entirely  insensible  to  its  existence.  But  ~  ^ 
although  its  existence  may  not  be  a  matter  of  consciousness  by 
being  felt,  yet  its  influence  over  our  conduct  will  be  such,  as  that 
the  fact  of  its  existence  will  in  this  way  be  made  manifest."  Here 
is  a  state  of  mind  recognised  which  Mr.  Finney,  with  an  utter 
confusion  of  the  proprieties  of  language,  chooses  to  call  love  ex- 
isting in  the  form  of  volition,  but  which  we  call  a  disposition.  But 
by  whatever  name  or  phrase  it  may  be  designated,  it  is  not  a 
faculty  of  the  mind  ;  it  is  not  the  object  of  consciousness,  has  no 
sensible  existence,  and  cannot  thereibre  in  any  proper  sense  be 
called  an  act  of  the  mind,  nor  yet  does  it  form  any  part  of  the 
substance  of  the  mind.  It  is  not  without  an  object  (what  it  is  will 
be  presently  seen)  that  Mr.  Finney  makes  so  queer  a  use  of  the 
term  volition  in  the  above  quotation  ;  but  the  insertion  of  this  word 
does  not  alter  the  bearing  of  the  passage  upon  the  point  now  in 
question.  His  subsequent  qualifications  show  that  he  is  describing 
something  different  from  an  act  of  the  mind  :  and  the  single  ques- 
tion now  before  us  is,  whether  there  can  be  in  the  mind  any  dis- 
position distinct  from  its  acts,  and  comprising  within  it  tendencies 
and  influences  towards  a  certain  course  of  action,  which  yet  does 
not  form  a  part  of  the  substance  of  the  mind.  The  passage  quoted  is 
clear  and  explicit,  as  far  as  this  question  is  concerned.  Let  us 
hope,  then,  that  we  shall  hear  no  more  from  Mr.  Finney  on  the  sub- 
ject of  physical  depravity  ;  or  at  least  that  when  he  next  chooses 
to  harangue  his  people  on  this  favourite  topic,  he  will  have  the 
candour,  the  plain,  homespun  honesty,  to  tell  them  that  there  is  not 
a  single  minister  in  the  Presbyterian  church  who  teaches  the  odious 
doctrine,  or  anything  that  legitimately  leads  to  it,  but  that  he  has 
brought  this  man  of  straw  before  them  to  show  them  how  quickly 
he  can  demolish  it.  We  have  a  great  aversion  to  this  Nero-like 
way  of  tying  up  Christians  in  the  skins  of  wild  beasts  that  the  dogs 
may  devour  them. 

But  it  will  be  said,  that  the  dispositions  which  have  been  shown 
to  exist  in  the  mind  are  formed  by  the  mind  itself,  in  the  voluntary 
exercise  of  its  powers  ;  such  would  not  be  the  case  with  a  disposi- 
tion existing  prior  to  all  action.  This  is  true,  but  it  is  not  of  the 
least  moment  in  settling  the  question  of  the  physical  character  of 
the  disposition.  If  a  disposition  may  be  produced  by  the  mind 
itself,  which  so  far  from  being  itself  an  act  makes  its  existence 
known  only  by  its  injiuence,  and  which  yet  is  not  incorporated 
with  the  substance  of  our  being,  nor  entitled  to  the  epithet  physical, 
then  such  a  disposition  might  inhere  in  the  mind  prior  to  all  mental 
action,  without  possessing  a  physical  character.  There  is  not  the 
least  relevancy  or  force,  therefore,  in  the  argument  commonly  and 


88  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION*. 

chiefly  relied  upon,  that  if  there  be  such  an  antecedent  disposition., 
it  must  be  physical.  The  only  plausible  argument  that  can  be  urged 
here,  is,  that  experience  shows  us  what  is  the  formative  law  of  our 
dispositions,  that  these  are  always  generated  by  the  mind's  own 
action ;  and  it  is  absurd  therefore  to  suppose  that  any  disposition 
can  exist  in  the  mind  anterior  to  all  action.  The  conclusion  to 
which  this  argument  arrives  is  wider  than  the  premises.  Its  fal- 
lacy, and  it  is  an  obvious  one,  lies  in  extending  a  law,  generalized 
from  observation  upon  the  mind's  action,  to  a  case  in  which  by 
hypothesis  the  mind  has  never  yet  acted,  and  to  which,  of  course, 
the  law  can  have  no  application.  There  is  here  a  fallacy  of  the 
same  nature  as  would  be  involved  in  a  process  of  reasoning  like 
this : — All  our  observation  proves  to  us  that  no  tree  can  be  pro- 
duced but  by  calling  into  action  the  germinative  power  of  its  seed. 
The  seed  must  be  planted  in  a  fitting  soil,  and  be  subjected  to  a 
certain  class  of  influences  ; — it  must  decay  and  then  send  forth  the 
tender  shrub,  which,  in  its  turn,  must  be  sustained  by  appropriate 
nourishment ;  and  years  must  elapse  before  the  tree  will  lift  its  tall 
head  to  the  skies.  No  man  has  ever  seen  a  tree  produced  by  any 
other  means,  and  the  nature  of  things  is  such  that  a  tree  cannot  be 
produced  in  any  other  way.  Therefore,  no  tree  could  have  origi- 
nally come  into  being  but  through  the  same  process.  The  error 
in  reasoning  is  here  apparent,  nor  is  it  less  so  in  the  case  which 
this  was  intended  to  illustrate. 

Here  again  it  will  be  urged,  and  at  first  sight  the  objection  may 
seem  to  gather  force  from  the  illustration  we  have  just  employed, 
that  if  there  be  any  such  antecedent  disposition  as  we  are  contend- 
ing for,  formed  previous  to  any  action  of  the  mind,  it  must  be  the 
direct  effect  of  creative  power  ;  and  if  it  possess  any  moral  cha- 
racter, as  we  shall  offer  some  reasons  for  believing  it  does,  then 
God  is  the  immediate  author  of  sin.  This  is  the  form  in  which 
this  objection  is  always  put  by  Mr.  Finney  and  others,  and  we 
have  therefore  adopted  it,  although  it  assumes  what  has  been 
shown  to  be  untrue,  that  a  disposition  of  mind,  in  the  sense  in 
which  we  use  the  term,  implies  the  idea  either  of  a  physical  entity 
or  a  spiritual  substance.  It  does  not  and  cannot  include  any  such 
idea,  and  can  in  no  case  be  considered,  therefore,  as  the  effect  of 
creative  power.  But  does  it  follow  that  a  primitive  disposition, 
such  as  we  speak  of,  must  be  the  direct  product  of  the  agency  of 
the  Deity  ?  Is  it  not  evident,  on  the  contrary,  that  this  is  only  one 
out  of  an  infinite  number  of  modes  in  which  it  may  possibly  have 
been  produced  ? — The  first  tree  might  have  been  called  into  being 
by  the  power  of  God,  and  sprung  up  in  an  instant,  complete  in  all 
its  proportions  ;  but  it  might  also  have  been  produced  in  an  end- 
less number  of  ways,  through  the  operation  of  some  law,  different, 
of  course,  from  the  existing  law  of  vegetable  production,  but  re- 
quiring as  much  time  for  the  completion  of  its  process,  and  remov- 
ing its  final  result  to  any  assignable  distance  from  the  direct  inter- 
ference of  divine  agency.     So  is  it  possible  too,  that  a  primitive 


ON   REVIVALS    OP   RELIGION.  8» 

disposition  of  mind  may  be  produced  in  an  infinite  number  of  ways; 
and  the  mode  of  its  formation  may  be  such  that  it  cannot  be  con- 
sidered the  effect  of  the  divine  power  in  any  other  sense  than  that 
'in  which  all  the  movements  and  actions  both  of  matter  and  mind 
throughout  the  universe,  are  said  to  be  of  God. 

We  think  we  have  now  shown  that  there  are  such  states  of 
mind  as  have  been  designated  by  the  term  disposition ;  that  a  dis- 
position of  mind  may  exist  anterior  to  all  mental  action ;  that  this 
disposition  does  not  form  any  part  of  the  substance  of  the  mind  ; 
and  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  God  is  the  author  of  it, 
in  any  other  sense  than  that  in  which  He  is  the  author  of  all  we 
feel  and  do. 

We  come  now  to  discuss  the  question  of  the  moral  character  of 
mental  dispositions.  Mr.  Finney,  with  his  accustomed  violence 
and  lavish  abuse  of  those  who  teach  a  different  doctrine,  denies 
that  a  disposition  of  mind,  granting  its  existence,  could  possess  any 
moral  character.  Most  of  his  arguments  on  this  point  have  been 
already  despatched  by  our  prehminary  discussion.  If  it  be  true 
that  a  disposition  is  sinful,  then  sin  is  a  substance,  instead  of  a 
quality  of  action  : — then,  too,  God  is  the  author  of  sin,  and  He  is 
an  infinite  tyrant,  since  he  damns  man  for  being  what  He  made 
him.  This  sentence  comprises  within  it  the  substance  of  most  that 
wears  the  semblance  of  argument  in  what  Mr.  Finney  has  said  on 
this  subject ;  and  how  perfectly  futile  this  is  has  been  made  suffi- 
ciently apparent. 

He  argues  from  the  text,  "  Sin  is  a  transgression  of  the  law," 
that  sin  attaches  only  to  acts,  and  cannot  be  predicated  of  a  dispo- 
sition. As  well  might  he  argue  from  the  assertion,  man  is  a  crea- 
ture of  sensation,  that  he  possessed  no  powers  of  reflection.  Until 
he  can  show,  what  indeed  he  has  asserted  very  dogmatically,  but 
of  which  he  has  offered  no  proof,  that  this  text  was  meant  to  be  a 
strict  definition  of  sin,  it  will  not  serve  his  purpose. 

The  only  other  arguments  worthy  of  notice,  which  Mr.  Finney 
adduces  in  support  of  his  position,  that  all  sin  consists  in  acts,  are 
drawn  from  the  considerations  that  "  voluntariness  is  indispensable 
to  moral  character." 

There  is  undoubtedly  a  sense  in  which  it  is  true,  that  nothing 
can  be  sinful  which  is  not  voluntary.  And  in  this  sense  of  the  word 
all  our  dispositions  are  voluntary.  There  are  two  meanings  at- 
tached to  the  word  will.  It  sometimes  denotes  the  single  faculty 
of  mind,  called  will ;  and  sometimes  all  the  active  powers  of  the 
mind,  all  its  desires,  inclinations  and  affections.  This  double  mean- 
ing has  proved  a  great  snare  to  Mr.  Finney.  He  either  never 
made  the  distinction,  or  perpetually  loses  sight  of  it,  and  hence  is 
often  inconsistent  with  himself  In  seeking  to  exhibit  the  meaning 
which  he  prevalently  attaches  to  the  words  will,  voluntary,  &c., 
we  shall  have  occasion  to  present  to  our  readers  a  very  singular 
theory  of  morals.  *•  Nothing,"  he  says,  "  can  be  sinful  or  holy, 
which  is  not  directly  or  indirectly  under  the  control  of  the  will.** 


90  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

But  over  our  emotions  "  the  will  has  no  direct  influence,  and  can 
only  bring  them  into  existence  through  thej  medium  of  the  atten- 
tion. Feelings  or  emotions  are  dependent  upon  thought,  and  arise 
spontaneously  in  the  mind  when  the  thoughts  are  intensely  occu- 
pied with  their  corresponding  objects.  Thought  is  under  the  di- 
rect control  of  the  will.  We  can  direct  our  attention  and  medita- 
tions to  any  subject,  and  the  corresponding  emotions  will  sponta- 
neously arise  in  the  mind.  Thus  our  feelings  are  only  indirectly 
under  the  control  of  the  will.  They  are  sinful  or  holy  only  as  they 
are  thus  indirectly  bidden  into  existence  by  the  will.  Men  often 
complain  that  they  cannot  control  their  feelings ;  they  form  over- 
whelming attachments  which  they  say  they  cannot  control.  They 
receive  injuries,  their  anger  rises,  they  profess  they  cannot  help  it. 
Now  while  the  attention  is  occupied  with  dwelhng  upon  the  be- 
loved object  in  the  one  case,  the  emotions  of  which  they  complain 
will  exist  of  course  ;  and  if  the  emotion  be  disapproved  by  the 
judgment  and  conscience,  the  subject  must  be  dismissed  from  the 
thoughts,  and  the  attention  directed  to  some  other  subject,  as  the 
only  possible  way  of  ridding  themselves  of  the  emotion.  So  in 
the  other  case,  the  subject  of  the  injury  must  be  dismissed,  and 
their  thoughts  occupied  with  other  considerations,  or  emotions  of 
hatred  will  continue  to  fester  and  rankle  in  their  minds."  Again, 
in  another  place,  he  says,  "  If  a  man  voluntarily  place  himself  un- 
der such  circumstances  as  to  call  wicked  emotions  into  exercise,  he 
is  entirely  responsible  for  them.  If  he  place  himself  under  cir- 
cumstances where  virtuous  emotions  are  called  forth,  he  is  praise-, 
worthy  in  the  exercise  of  them,  precisely  in  proportion  to  his  vo- 
luntariness in  bringing  his  mind  into  circumstances  to  cause  their 
existence."  Again,  he  says,  "  If  he  (a  real  Christian)  has  volunta- 
rily placed  himself  under  these  circumstances  of  temptation,  he  is 
responsible  for  these  emotions  of  opposition  to  God  rankling  in 
his  heart."     We  might  quote  pages  of  similar  remarks. 

These  passages  would  afford  ground  for  comment  on  Mr.  Fin- 
ney's philosophy.  He  shows  himself  here,  as  on  all  occasions 
when  he  ventures  upon  the  field  of  mental  science,  a  perfect  novice. 
But  we  are  chiefly  concerned  with  the  theological  bearings  of  the 
passages  quoted.  It  is  evident  that  Mr.  Finney  here  uses  the 
words  will,  voluntarily,  &c.,  in  their  restricted  sense ;  and  hence  we 
have  the  dangerous  theory  of  morals,  that  nothing  can  possess  a 
moral  character  which  is  not  under  the  control  of  the  volitions  of 
the  mind.  But  our  emotions  cannot  be  thus  controlled.  They  rise 
spontaneously  in  the  mind,  they  must  exist  when  the  thoughts  are 
occupied  with  the  objects  appropriate  to  their  production.  Hence 
all  our  emotions,  aflfections  and  passions,  according  to  Mr.  Finney, 
possess  a  moral  character  only  in  consequence  of  the  power  which 
the  mind  has,  by  an  act  of  will,  to  change  the  object  of  thought, 
and  thus  introduce  a  different  class  of  feelings.  Now,  we  might 
object  to  this  view  of  the  matter,  that  the  will  does  not  possess  the 
power  here  attributed  to  it.    Our  trains  of  thought  are  in  some  de- 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  dl 

gree  subject  to  our  volitions  ;  but  the  will  has  by  no  means  an  ab- 
solute control  over  the  attention  of  the  mind.  Attention  is  gene- 
rally indeed  but  another  name  for  the  interesting  character  of  the 
idea  to  which  the  mind  is  attending,  and  is  no  more  directly  sub- 
ject therefore  to  the  bidding  of  the  will,  than  is  the  state  of  mind 
which  imparts  its  interest  to  the  present  object  of  thought.  The 
grounds  and  the  force  of  this  objection  will  be  evident  to  any  one 
who  will  reflect  upon  states  of  mind  which  he  has  been  in,  when 
his  whole  soul  was  so  absorbed  in  the  contemplation  of  some  sub- 
ject, that  all  his  efforts  to  break  away  from  the  scenes  which  riveted 
his  attention,  only  served  to  break  for  a  moment  their  fascinating 
power.  But  we  will  wave  this  objection,  not  because  it  is  not  suf- 
ficiently strong  to  be  fatal  to  Mr.  Finney's  theory,  but  because  it 
lies  aside  from  our  present  course. 

A  still  more  serious  objection  is,  that  upon  this  theory  it  is  im- 
possible that  our  emotions  should  possess  any  moral  character.  If 
they  are  moral,  "  only  as  they  are  indirectly  bidden  into  existence 
by  the  will,"  then  they  cannot  be  moral  at  all.  If  it  is  necessary 
to  go  back  to  the  act  of  will  which  introduced  the  object,  in  view 
of  which  these  emotions  necessarily  arise,  to  find  their  moral  cha- 
racter, then  upon  no  just  grounds  can  morality  be  predicated  of 
them.  If  a  man  has  put  out  his  eyes,  he  cannot  justly  be  account- 
ed guilty  for  not  being  able  to  read,  nor  for  any  of  the  consequen- 
ces which  result  from  his  blindness.  These  consequences,  if  he 
could  have  foreseen  them,  do  indeed  accumulate  the  greater  guilt 
upon  the  act  of  putting  out  his  eyes ;  but  that  act  is  all  for  which 
he  is  fairly  responsible.  So  in  the  other  case,  it  is  upon  the  act  of 
the  will  which  brought  the  mind  into  contact  with  the  objects,  which 
of  necessity  awakened  its  emotions,  that  we  must  charge  all  the 
responsibility.  All  the  virtue  and  vice,  the  holiness  and  sin  of 
which  we  are  capable,  must  lie  solely  in  the  manner  of  managing 
the  power  of  attention.  He  is  a  perfect  man  whose  mind  is  so 
trained  that  it  takes  up  whatever  subject  of  meditation  the  will 
enjoins ;  and  he  is  a  sinful  man,  whose  mind,  without  a  direct  voli- 
tion to  that  effect,  reverts,  as  if  by  instinct,  to  holy  themes  and 
heavenly  meditations,  and  adheres  to  them  even  though  the  will 
should  endeavour  to  force  it  away.  All  the  foundations  of  moral- 
ity and  religion  are  virtually  swept  away  by  this  theory.  If  its 
assumptions  be  true,  we  should  discard  all  the  motives  and  means 
now  employed  to  promote  virtue.  As  it  makes  all  moral  excel- 
lence reside  in  the  readiness  and  skill  with  which  the  power  of  at- 
tention is  managed,  the  most  efficient  means  for  the  promotion  of 
virtue,  beyond  all  comparison,  would  be  the  study  of  the  mathema- 
tics. Such  are  the  ridiculous  extremes  to  which  Mr.  Finney  is  driv- 
en in  carrying  out  his  doctrine,  that  all  sin  consists  in  acts.  It  can 
hardly  be  maintained  that  we  have  caricatured  his  doctrine,  or  run 
it  out  beyond  its  intrinsic  tendency.  For  if,  as  he  says,  a  man  is 
praiseworthy  or  blamable  in  the  exercise  of  his  emotions,  only 
because  he  has  placed  himself  under  circumstances  where  these 


92  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

emotions  are  called  forth,  then  it  is  plainly  unjust  to  charge  respon- 
sibility upon  anything  else  than  the  act  of  placing  himself  under 
the  circumstances. 

But  without  charging  upon  his  theory  anything  beyond  what 
he  has  developed  as  its  admitted  consequences,  who  does  not  see 
upon  the  face  of  his  own  statements  absurdity  enough  to  condemn 
any  doctrine  which  necessarily  involves  it  ?  A  man  is  responsible 
for  his  emotions,  he  says,  only  when  he  has  voluntarily  brought 
himself  under  such  circumstances  as  to  call  them  into  existence. 
Let  us  suppose  then,  two  men,  brought  without  any  direct  agency 
of  their  own  under  the  same  set  of  circumstances.  We  will  ima- 
gine them  taken  by  force  and  placed  in  a  grog  shop,  filled  with 
tipplers  quaffing  the  maddening  drink,  and  uttering  blasphemies 
that  might  make  "  the  cheek  of  darkness  pale."  Emotions  are  at 
once  awakened  in  both  the  spectators.  The  desires  of  the  one  go 
forth  over  the  scene ;  he  takes  pleasure  in  those  who  do  such 
things ;  he  longs  to  drink  and  curse  with  them ;  he  knows  that 
this  is  wrong,  and  endeavours  to  change  the  subject  of  meditation, 
but  his  sympathy  with  the  scene  before  him  is  so  strong  that  his 
thoughts  will  not  be  torn  away  from  it,  and  his  mind  continues 
filled  with  emotions  partaking  of  its  hideous  character.  The 
heart  of  the  other  instantlyl  revolts  at  the  scene.  Every  time 
he  hears  the  name  of  God  blasphemed,  he  thinks  of  the  goodness 
and  glory  of  the  Being  thus  dishonoured,  and  while  wondering  that 
others  can  be  blind  to  his  excellency,  the  liveliest  feelings  of  ado- 
ration and  gratitude  are  awakened  in  his  heart.  Now,  according 
to  Mr.  Finney,  there  is  no  moral  difference  between  these  men ; 
they  are  not  responsible  for  emotions  thus  awakened.  The  one 
has  not  sinned,  nor  is  the  other  praiseworthy.  This  is  no  conse- 
quence deduced  from  something  else  that  he  has  said.  It  is  a  case 
put  in  strict  accordance  with  his  explicit  statements.  Such  is 
the  monstrous  absurdity  to  which  he  is  driven,  by  denying  that 
the  state  of  mind  which  would,  under  the  circumstances  above 
supposed,  have  disposed  one  of  the  spectators  to  descend  and 
mingle  in  the  filth  and  wickedness  of  the  scene,  and  the  other,  to 
rise  from  it  to  heaven  in  his  holy  desires  and  emotions,  does  of 
itself  possess  a  moral  character. 

Another  illustration  of  the  absurdities  in  which  he  has  involved 
himself,  is  furnished  by  his  declaration,  that  man  is  praiseworthy 
in  the  exercise  of  his  emotions,  "  precisely  in  proportion  to  his  vo- 
luntariness in  bringing  his  mind  into  circumstances  to  cause  their 
existence."  Mr.  Finney's  common  method  of  expressing  the  incom- 
prehensibility of  anything  is  by  saying,  "It  is  all  algebra;"  and  we 
must  really  doubt  whether  he  knows  the  meaning  of  the  ievm  propor- 
tion. For  upon  his  principles,  the  ratio  between  the  merit  or  the 
demerit  of  any  two  actions  whatever,  must  be  a  ratio  of  equality. 
Voluntariness,  in  his  sense  of  the  word,  does  not  admit  of  degrees. 
The  will  either  acts  or  it  does  not,  to  bring  the  man  under  the  pe- 
culiar circumstances.     There  are  no  degrees  in  its  consent  or  refu- 


ON    REVIVALS    OF   RELIGION.  93 

sal ;  and  of  course  there  can  be  no  degrees  in  moral  worth,  or  in 
guilt.  If  two  men  have  each  received  the  same  injury,  and  each 
by  an  act  of  will  directed  the  attention  of  the  mind  to  the  injury 
and  him  "who  committed  it,  then  they  are  equally  guilty  for  their 
feelings  of  hatred,  however  much  those  feelings  may  differ  in 
strength.  There  can  be  no  difference  of  degree  in  the  moral  de- 
merit of  their  emotions,  although  the  one  should  hate  his  adversary 
enough  to  work  him  some  slight  injury  in  return,  and  the  other  hate 
him  so  much  that  nothing  less  than  the  murder  of  his  victim  will 
satisfy  his  thirst  for  vengeance.  The  two  men  were  equally  volun- 
tary in  bringing  their  minds  under  the  circumstances  which  awak- 
en their  emotions,  and  must  of  necessity,  according  to  Mr.  Finney's 
canon  of  morahty,  be  equally  guilty. 

There  is  indeed  another  class  of  passages  in  Mr.  Finney's  writ- 
ings, in  which  he  brings  forward  a  further  criterion  of  morality. 
He  says,  "  When  the  will  is  decided  by  the  voice  of  conscience,  or 
a  regard  to  right,  its  decisions  are  virtuous."  The  change  of  pre- 
ference, or  the  decision  of  the  will,  which  takes  place  in  regenera- 
tion, must  be  made,  **  because  to  act  thus  is  right"  The  will  must 
decide  "  to  obey  God,  to  serve  him,  to  honour  him,  and  promote 
his  glory,  because  it  is  reasonable,  and  right,  and  just."  "  It  is  the 
Tightness  of  the  duty  that  must  influence  the  mind  if  it  would  act 
virtuously."  And  again,  "  When  a  man  is  fully  determined  to 
obey  God,  because  it  is  right  that  he  should  obey  God,  I  call  that 
principle."  In  these  passages,  and  there  are  many  more  like  them, 
he  seems  to  resolve  all  virtue  into  rectitude.  It  is  evident  why  he 
does  so,  for  he  is  thus  enabled  to  require  a  mental  decision,  an  act 
of  the  mind,  in  relation  to  the  rectitude  of  any  emotion  or  action, 
in  order  to  constitute  it  virtuous  ;  and  thus  defend  his  position  that 
morality  can  attach  only  to  acts.  He  has  here  fallen  into  the  mis- 
take, however,  of  making  the  invariable  quality  of  an  action  the 
motive  to  its  performance.  It  is  true  that  all  virtuous  actions  are 
right,  but  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  their  rectitude  must  be 
the  motive  to  the  performance  of  them.  If  this  be  so,  then  the 
child,  who  in  all  things  honours  his  parent,  does  not  act  virtuously 
unless  each  act  of  obedience  is  preceded  by  a  mental  decision  that 
it  is  right  for  him  to  obey.  Mr.  Finney  desired  to  take  ground 
which  would  enable  him  to  deny  that  there  is  anything  of  the  na- 
ture of  holiness  in  the  Christian's  emotions  of  love  to  God,  when 
prompted  by  his  disposition  to  love  him  ;  but  he  has  evidently  as- 
sumed an  untenable  position. 

We  could  easily  bring  forward  more  errors  into  which  he  has 
been  betrayed  in  carrying  out  his  false  doctrine,  that  morality  can 
be  predicated  only  of  acts.  But  we  have  surely  presented  enough. 
And  this  exposure  renders  it  unnecessary  that  we  should  repeat 
what  have  been  so  often  produced  and  never  refuted,  the  positive 
arguments  for  believing  that  our  dispositions,  or  states  of  heart,  in- 
cluding the  original  disposition  by  which  we  are  biassed  to  evil, 
pos'sess  a  moral  character,  and  are  the  proximate  sources  of  all  the 


94  ON   REVIVALS    OP    RELIGION. 

good  and  evil  in  our  conduct.  Some  of  Mr.  Finney's  pretended 
arguments  against  this  opinion  we  have  not  answered,  simply  be- 
cause they  are  so  puerile,  that,  though  we  made  the  effort,  we 
could  not  condescend  to  notice  them.  All  of  them  that  had  the 
least  plausibility  we  have  shown  to  be  without  any  real  force. 
And  if  any  man  can  reject  this  opinion  on  account  of  the  difficul- 
ties with  which  it  is  still  encumbered,  and  adopt  the  monstrosities 
connected  with  Mr.  Finney's  rival  doctrine,  we  must  think  that  he 
strains  at  a  gnat  and  swallows  a  camel. 

As  might  have  been  expected  from  what  has  already  been  said, 
Mr.  Finney  denies  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  natural  depravity. 
His  views  on  this  subject  are  easily  exhibited.  We  might  describe 
them  all,  indeed,  in  a  single  phrase,  by  saying,  that  they  are  neither 
more  nor  less  than  the  old  Pelagian  notions.  . "  This  state  of  mind," 
he  says,  describing  the  commencement  of  sin  in  a  child,  "is  entire- 
ly the  result  of  temptation  to  selfishness,  arising  out  of  the  circum- 
stances under  which  the  child  comes  into  being."  "  If  it  be  asked 
how  it  happens  that  children  universally  adopt  the  principle  of  sel- 
fishness, unless  their  nature  is  sinful  ?  I  answer,  that  they  adopt 
this  principle  of  self-gratification,  or  selfishness,  because  they  pos- 
sess human  nature,  and  come  into  being  under  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances in  which  all  the  children  of  Adam  are  born  since  the  fall." 
"  The  cause  of  outbreaking  sin  is  not  to  be  found  in  a  sinful  con- 
stitution or  nature,  but  in  a  wrong  original  choice."  "  The  only 
sense  in  which  sin  is  natural  to  man  is,  that  it  is  natural  for 
the  mind  to  be  influenced  in  its  individual  exercises  by  a  supreme 
preference  or  choice  of  any  object."  On  reading  this  last  extra- 
ordinary declaration,  the  text  of  an  inspired  apostle  came  to  mind, 
in  which  he  assures  us,  that  we  are  "  by  nature  children  of  wrath." 
If  both  those  declarations  be  true,  we  have  the  curious  result  that 
we  are  children  of  wrath,  not  because  we  are  sinners,  but  because 
we  are  so  made  as  to  be  influenced  by  a  supreme  choice  !  But 
texts  of  Scripture  are  as  nothing  in  Mr.  Finney's  way.  He  makes 
them  mean  more  or  less,  stretches  or  curtails  them,  just  as  occasion 
requires.  His  system  is  a  perfect  Procrustean  bed,  to  which  the 
Bible,  no  less  than  all  things  else,  must  be  fitted.  An  illustration 
of  this  is  found  in  his  manner  of  dealing  with  the  passage,  "  I  was 
shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me."  This 
text  would  seem,  at  first  sight,  to  present  a  very  serious  obstacle  to 
his  views.  And  what  does  he  do  with  it  ?  He  first  gravely  proves 
that  it  does  not  mean  "  the  substance  of  a  conceived  foetus  is  sin  I" 
He  then  jumps  to  the  conclusion,  "  All  that  can  be  possibly  meant 
by  this  and  similar  passages  is,  that  we  were  always  sinners  from 
the  commencement  of  our  moral  existence,  from  the  earliest  mo- 
ment of  the  exercise  of  moral  agency."  That  is,  when  David  and 
the  other  sacred  writers  make  these  strong  assertions,  they  only 
mean  to  inform  us,  that  the  moment  we  adopt  the  principle  of  su- 
preme selfishness  as  our  rule  of  action,  we  do  wrong ;  or,  in  other 
words,  that  just  as  soon  as  we  begin  to  sin,  we  sin  !     May  we  not 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  96^  • 

well  say,  that  he  has  a  marvellous  faculty  for  making  a  text  mean 
anything,  or  nothing,  as  suits  his  purpose  ?  Another  illustra- 
tion of  this  is  furnished  by  his  interpretation  of  the  text,  "  The 
carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,  for  it  is  not  subject  to 
the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be."  The  carnal  mind,  he 
says,  means  a  minding  of  the  fleshy  a  voluntary  action  of  the  mind, 
a  choice  that  is  supremely  selfish.  While  men  act  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  supreme  selfishness,  obedience  is  impossible.  This,  he 
says,  is  the  reason  why  the  carnal  mind,  or  the  minding  of  the 
flesh,  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be. 
Wonderful  discovery !  So  the  apostle,  in  this  passage,  meant 
nothing  more  than  the  stale  truism,  that  a  man  cannot  be  sinful  and 
holy  at  the  same  time, — that  he  cannot,  in  the  same  act,  transgress 
the  law  and  render  obedience  to  it. 

Pelagians  have  always  found  a  difliculty  in  reconciling  their 
theory  with  the  salvation  of  infants  by  the  grace  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Pelagius  himself  was  sorely  pressed  on  this  point.  Infants  are  in 
no  way  answerable  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  or  otherwise  evilly 
affected  by  it  than  that  it  brings  them  into  circumstances  of  temp- 
tation, and  they  have  no  sin  of  nature  ;  how  then  can  they  be  sub- 
jects of  pardon  ?  What  interest  can  they  have  in  the  atonement  of 
the  Saviour  ?  Let  us  see  how  Mr.  Finney  disposes  of  this  diffi- 
culty. "  Had  it  not  been  for  the  contemplated  atonement,  Adam 
and  Eve  would  have  been  sent  to  hell  at  once,  and  never  have  had 
any  posterity.  The  race  could  never  have  existed.  .  .  .  Now 
every  infant  owes  its  very  existence  to  the  grace  of  God  in  Jesus 
Christ ;  and  if  it  dies  previous  to  actual  transgression,  it  is  just  as 
absolutely  indebted  to  Christ  for  eternal  life  as  if  it  had  been  the 
greatest  sinner  on  earth."  We  have  no  words  to  express  our 
aversion  to  this  egregious  trifling  with  sacred  subjects.  The  Bible 
teaches  us  that  all  of  our  race  who  are  saved  are  redeemed  from 
sin  ;  that  they  are  saved,  not  born,  by  virtue  of  the  atonement  of 
Jesus  Christ.  And  when  we  ask  Mr.  Finney  how  this  can  be  re- 
conciled with  his  theory  that  there  is  nothing  connected  with 
infants  that  can  be  atoned  for,  he  very  gravely  tells  us  that  they 
owe  their  birth  to  the  grace  of  God  ! 

He  does  not  tell  us  why  he  baptizes  infants.  We  do  not  know, 
indeed,  whether  he  ever  administers  this  ordinance  to  children 
previous  to  the  supposed  commencement  of  moral  action.  Cer- 
tainly, upon  his  principles,  it  could  have  no  meaning.  He  rejects, 
with  utter  scorn  and  ridicule,  the  idea  that  in  regeneration  and 
sanctification  there  takes  place  anything  that  can  be  properly 
symbolized  by  "  the  washing  oflf  of  some  defilement."  The  water 
of  baptism  then,  to  whomsoever  this  rite  be  applied,  cannot  have 
any  emblematical  meaning  ;  and  the  apostle  committed  a  rhetori- 
cal error,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  when  he  wrote,  "  But  ye  are 
washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified"  But  with  what  propriety  this  ordi- 
nance can  be  administered  to  children,  who,  having  never  actually 
transgressed,  are  not  sinners,  who  are  just  what  they  ought  to  be, 


96  ON    REVIVALS    OP    RELIGION. 

we  cannot  conceive.  Surely  consistency  requires  Mr.  Finney  to 
assign  to  infant  baptism  a  place  among  those  hated  abominations, 
upon  which  he  so  much  dwells,  that  the  "  traditions  of  the  elders" 
have  introduced  into  the  church. 

We  shall  not  undertake  to  show  in  detail  the  inadequacy  of  Mr. 
Finney's  theory  to  account  for  the  sin  there  is  in  the  world.  This 
has  often  been  done.  And  it  still  remains  perfectly  inexplicable 
why,  if  men  come  into  the  world  with  just  such  a  nature  as  they 
ought  to  have,  prone  no  more  to  evil  than  to  good,  and  are  sur- 
rounded at  the  same  time  with  "  infinite  motives"  to  holiness,  and 
"  circumstances"  that  tempt  them  to  sin,  that  they  should  all,  with 
one  accord,  obey  the  force  of  the  finite  circumstances  rather  than 
the  infinite  motives.  If  this  be  the  state  of  the  case,  we  might 
naturally  expect  all  mankind  to  become  holy,  excepting  here  and 
there  some  luckless  one,  who,  not  having  sufficient  skill  so  to 
manage  the  attention  of  his  mind  as  to  keep  before  it  the  infinite 
motives  to  holiness,  would  fall  into  sin.  Here  too  we  might  ask, 
what  has  become  of  the  doctrine  that  God  has  done  all  that  he 
could  to  prevent  the  present  degree  of  sin  ?  If  he  can  so  influence 
some  men,  after  their  hearts  are  set  in  them  to  do  evil,  that  they 
shall  become  holy,  could  he  not  have  induced  them,  at  the  first,  to 
choose  holiness  instead  of  sin  ? 

We  cannot  pass  from  this  part  of  our  subject  without  developing 
one  of  the  many  singular  results  afforded  by  the  comparison  of 
diflferent  parts  of  Mr.  Finney's  writings.  The  one  we  are  now 
about  to  present  is  so  very  peculiar  that  we  solicit  for  it  special 
attention.  He  rejects  the  common  doctrine  of  depravity,  because 
it  makes  man  a  sinner  by  necessity — it  makes  God  the  author  of 
sin — it  is  a  constitutional  or  physical  depravity,  and  leads  to  physi- 
cal regeneration,  &c.  He  frequently  blows  off"  the  superfluous 
excitement  produced  in  his  mind  by  this  view  of  depravity,  in  sen- 
tences like  the  following  :  "  That  God  has  made  men  sinners, 
incapable  of  serving  him — suspended  their  salvation  upon  impossi- 
ble conditions — made  it  indispensable  that  they  should  have  a 
physical  regeneration,  and  then  damns  them  for  being  sinners,  and 
for  not  complying  with  these  impossible  conditions — monstrous  ! 
blasphemous  !  Believe  this  who  can  !"  Now  let  us  see  how  he 
gets  rid  of  this  physical  necessity,  which  he  falsely  but  uniformly 
charges  upon  the  common  opinions  respecting  depravity.  Accord- 
ing to  his  theory,  the  cause  of  men  becoming  sinners  is  to  be  found 
in  their  possessing  human  nature,  and  coming  into  being  under  cir- 
cumstances of  temptation — in  the  adaptation  between  certain 
motives  which  tempt  to  undue  self-gratification,  and  the  innocent 
constitutional  propensities  of  human  nature.  But  in  one  of  his 
lectures,  where  he  is  endeavouring  to  persuade  his  hearers  to  use 
the  appropriate  means  for  promoting  a  revival,  and  presenting  on 
that  account  such  truths  and  in  such  forms  as  seem  to  him  most 
stirring,  he  says  :  "  Probably  the  law  connecting  cause  and  eflfect 
is  more  undeviating  in  spiritual  than  in  natural  things,  and  so  there 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  97 

are  fewer  exceptions,  as  I  have  before  said.  The  paramount  im- 
portance of  spiritual  things  makes  it  reasonable  that  it  should  be 
so."  In  the  use  of  means  for  promoting  revivals,  he  says  again  : 
"  The  effect  is  more  certain  to  follow,"  than  in  the  use  of  means  to 
raise  a  crop  of  grain.  Now,  upon  his  system,  the  efficiency  of  all 
means  for  promoting  revivals  may  be  traced  up  ultimately  to  the 
tendency  of  eternal  motives  to  influence  the  mind.  We  have  here, 
then,  the  position,  distinctly  involved,  that  motives,  when  properly 
presented,  when  so  presented  as  to  produce  their  appropriate  effect, 
operate  by  a  surer  law  than  any  of  the  physical  laws  of  matter. 
The  effect  of  the  proper  presentation  of  a  motive  to  the  mind  is 
more  certain,  and  of  course  more  inevitable,  than  that  the  blade  of 
wheat  should  spring  from  the  planted  seed,  or  a  heavy  body  fall  to 
the  ground.  Now  he  will  not  deny  that  the  motives  to  sin,  which 
meet  man  soon  after  his  entrance  into  the  world,  are  thus  ade- 
quately presented  ;  for  the  sad  proof  of  it  is  found  in  the  uniform 
production  of  their  effect.  That  effect  must  of  course  be  inevita- 
ble, beyond  any  idea  of  necessity  that  we  can  form  from  the  opera- 
tion of  physical  laws. 

From  the  parts  of  his  scheme  already  presented,  our  readers 
will  be  able  to  anticipate  Mr.  Finney's  theory  of  regeneration. 
The  change  which  takes  place  in  regeneration  he,  of  course, 
represents  as  a  change  in  the  mind's  method  of  acting.  As  it 
originally  chose  sin  instead  of  holiness,  so  a  new  habit  consists  in 
choosing  holiness  instead  of  sin.  The  idea  that  there  is  imparted 
to  the  heart  a  new  relish  for  spiritual  objects,  or  that  any  new 
principle  is  implanted,  he  rejects  ;  to  teach  this,  he  says,  is  to 
teach  a  physical  religion,  which  has  been  the  great  source  of 
infidelity  in  the  church.  "  It  is  true,"  he  says,  "  the  constitution  of 
the  mind  must  be  suited  to  the  nature  of  the  outward  influence 
or  motive  ;  and  there  must  be  such  an  adaptation  of  the  mind  to 
the  motive,  and  of  the  motive  to  the  mind,  as  is  calculated  to 
produce  any  desired  action  of  the  mind.  But  it  is  absurd  to  say 
that  this  constitutional  adaptation  must  be  a  holy  princijie,  or  taste, 
or  craving  after  obedience  to  God.  All  holiness  in  God,  angels, 
or  men,  must  be  voluntary,  or  it  is  not  holiness.  To  call  anything 
that  is  a  part  of  the  mind  or  body,  holy — to  speak  of  a  holy  sub- 
stance, unless  in  a  figurative  sense,  is  to  talk  nonsense."  We 
remark  here,  in  passing,  that  this  is  the  uniform  style  in  which  Mr. 
Finney  caricatures  the  opinions  from  which  he  dissents.  From  one 
form  of  statement  he  habitually  passes  to  another,  as  completely 
synonymous,  which  has  not  the  remotest  resemblance  to  it.  He 
assumes  here  that  a  principle,  or  taste,  cannot  be  voluntary,  whereas 
it  cannot  but  be  voluntary,  in  the  only  sense  in  which  voluntariness 
is  essential  to  moral  character ;  and  also  that  it  must  be  a  substance, 
or  form  a  part  of  the  mind  or  body — an  assumption  than  which 
nothing  can  be  more  groundless  and  absurd.  He  adds,  "  The 
necessary  adaptation  of  the  outward  motive  to  the  mind,  and  the 
mind  to  the  motive,  lies  in  ihe  powers  of  moral  agency,  "which  every 

7 


98  ON    REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION. 

human  being  possesses."  Understanding,  conscience,  and  the 
power  of  choice,  he  supposes,  are  all  that  is  needful  to  enable  man 
to  receive  the  truth  of  God,  and  act  under  its  influence.  There  is 
nothing  new  in  all  this.  It  is  at  least  as  old  as  the  fifth  century. 
It  has  been  broached  repeatedly  since  the  days  of  Pelagius,  and  as 
often  shown,  by  arguments  that  have  not  yet  been  refuted,  to  be 
utterly  inadequate  to  account  for  the  facts  of  the  case.  We  have 
indeed  its  radical  unsoundness  fully  exposed  to  us  by  the  apostle 
Paul,  where  he  declares,  "  The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things 
of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  neither  can  he  know  them,  for  they  are  spiri- 
tually discerned."  This  passage  of  Scripture  will  bear  no  inter- 
pretation which  does  not  place  it  in  irreconcilable  contradiction 
with  Mr.  Finney's  theory.  He  generally  asserts  that  the  sinner 
knows  all  the  truth  that  is  necessary  to  induce  him  to  make  to  him- 
self a  new  heart,  and  that  the  only  reason  why  it  fails  to  produce 
this  effect  is  because  he  will  not  consider  the  truth.  We  say  geTie- 
rally f  because  here,  as  in  everything  else,  Mr.  Finney  is  inconsis- 
tent with  himself.  At  one  time  he  talks  thus :  "  It  is  indeed  the 
pressing  of  truth  upon  the  sinner's  consideration  that  induces  him 
to  turn.  But  it  is  not  true  that  he  is  ignorant  of  these  truths  before 
he  thus  considers  them.  He  knows  that  he  must  die — that  he  is  a 
sinner — that  God  is  right,  and  he  is  wrong,"  &c.  But  again,  when 
he  is  seeking  to  make  an  impression  upon  the  sinner,  he  assures  us 
that  "  the  idea  that  the  careless  sinner  is  an  intellectual  believer  is 
absurd — the  man  that  does  not  feel,  nor  act  at  all,  on  the  subject 
of  religion,  is  an  infidel,  let  his  professions  be  what  they  may."  But 
we  will  leave  him  to  explain  how  an  infidel  can  be  said  to  know 
that  to  be  true,  which  he  does  not  believe  to  be  true.  The  uniform 
tenor  of  his  representations,  when  treating  of  the  subject  gf  regene- 
ration, is  that  the  sinner  wilfully  refuses  to  consider  known  truths, 
and,  on  that  account  alone,  has  not  a  new  heart.  The  apostle,  on 
the  contrary,  declares  the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,  neither  can  he  know  them.  We  presume  that 
no  one  but  Mr.  Finney  himself  can  doubt  to  which  of  these  author- 
ities we  should  bow.  If  the  testimony  of  the  apostle  needed  any 
confirmation,  we  might  find  it  abundantly  in  human  experience. 
Every  man  knows  that  his  perception  of  moral  truths  depends  upon 
the  state  of  his  heart.  It  is  a  matter  of  familiar  experience,  that 
truths  which  sometimes  affect  us  scarcely  at  all,  will,  at  another' 
time,  act  so  powerfully  as  to  break  up  all  the  fountains  of  feeling 
within  us.  And  this  difference  is  not  owing  to  the  greater  or  less 
degree  of  consideration  bestowed  upon  the  truth ; — we  may  think 
of  it  as  profoundly  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  Who  has  not 
felt  that  a  familiar  truth,  occurring  to  the  mind  in  the  same  terms 
with  which  it  has  often  before  been  clothed,  will  suddenly  display 
a  hitherto  unseen  richness  of  meaning,  which  a^  once  wakes  up 
all  the  feelings  of  the  heart?  What  is  it  that  can  thus  modify  our 
powers  of  moral  perception  but  the  state  of  the  mind  ?  And'  how 
can  we  expect,  then,  that  the  spiritual  truths  of  God's  holy  word 


ON   REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION.  •  99 

should  produce  their  appropriate  eflfect  upon  the  mind  of  the  sinner, 
who  is  destitute  not  only  of  any  fellowship  with  those  truths,  but 
of  the  disposition  of  heart  by  which  their  meaning  is  discerned  ? 
We  cannot  understand  how  the  unrenewed  heart,  if  as  Mr.  Finney 
says  "  it  hates  God  with  mortal  hatred,"  can  even  understand  the 
real  meaning  of  the  truth,  God  is  love ;  or  feel  that  this  truth  is  a 
motive  for  subduing  its  hatred.  Nor  are  we  able  to  see  how  any 
of  those  considerations  most  frequently  presented  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures  can  prevail  with  the  sinner,  and  produce  upon  him  their 
appropriate  effect,  unless  his  mind  be  illuminated,  his  heart  renew- 
ed, by  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Mr.  Finney's  own  pages  will  furnish  us  with  evidence  that  he 
himself  considers  the  mind  as  needing  some  further  adaptation  to 
the  motives  of  the  Bible,  than  the  powers  of  moral  agency.     This 
evidence  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  motives  which  he  most  fre- 
quently and  importunately  urges,  are  not  those  which  are  commonly 
employed  in  the  sacred  Scriptures.  He  seems  to  have  a  kind  of  instinct 
of  the  insufficiency  of  the  considerations  presented  by  the  inspired 
writers,  to  answer  his  purpose.     The  most  common  form  in  which 
he  sets  forth  the  change  that  takes  place  in  regeneration,  is  that  of 
a  change  in  the  choice  of  a   Supreme  Ruler.     He   divides   the 
world  into  two  great  political  parties,  the  one  with  God,  the  other 
with  Satan,  at  its  head.     When  a  man  makes  for  himself  a  new 
heart,  he  changes  sides  in  politics — he  gives  up  the  service  of 
Satan,  and  submits  to  the  government  of  God.     The  great  duty 
which  he  urges  upon  the  sinner  is  unconditional  submission  to  God. 
This  duty,  as  presented  by  him,  is  very  rarely  intended  to  include 
submission  to  the  terms  of  salvation  revealed  in  the  gospel — it  is  a 
submission  to  God  as  the  great  creator  and  ruler  of  the  world — 
the  God  of  providence  rather  than  of  grace.     Now  it  will  at  once 
occur  to  every  reader  of  the  Bible,  that  this  is  not  the  duty  which 
the  sacred  writers  most  frequently  urge  upon  the  sinner.     They 
call  upon  men  to  repent,  and   believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
But  Mr.   Finney  says,  "  It  is  generally  in  point,  and  a  safe  and 
suitable  direction  to  tell  a  sinner  to  repent."    Marvellous  !  that  he 
should  consider  it  generally,  but  not  always  safe  to  tell  a  sinner  to 
do  that  which  the  apostles,  with  great  uniformity,  tell  him  to  do. 
The  other  part  of  the  apostolic  exhortation  to  sinners,  "  Believe  ia 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  he  seems  to  think,  should  no  longer  be 
given  in  any  case  save  where  an  individual  is  unwilling  to  admit 
that  Christ  is  the  Messiah  of  God.     This  exhortation  he  considers 
as  exclusively  suitable  to  the  days  of  the  apostles,  "  when  the 
minds  of  the  people  were  agitated  mainly  on  the  question,  whether 
Jesus  was  the  true  Messiah."    "  They  bore  down,"  he  says,  "  on 
this  point,  because  here  was  where  the  Spirit  of  God  was  striving 
with  them,  and  consequently,  this  would  probably  be  the  first  thing 
a  person  would    do    on    submitting   to  God."     He   does   indeed 
number  among  the  directions  to  be  given  to  sinners,  that  "  they 
should  be  told  to  believe  the  gospel ;"  but  he  explains  this  to-  meaa 


100  ON  REVIVALS   OF  RELIGION. 

nothing  more  than  "  that  trust  or  confidence  in  the  Scriptures  that 
leads  the  individual  to  act  as  if  they  were  true."  Of  that  specific 
act  of  faith  in  which  the  soul  apprehends  the  Lord  Jesus  as  its 
Saviour,  and  receives  pardon  and  justification,  he  seems  not  to 
have  the  least  idea.  The  sole  value  of  repentance  or  faith,  he  finds 
in  the  manifestation  which  they  aflTord  of  the  heart's  willingness  to 
submit  to  the  authority  of  God.  "  Whatever  point,"  he  says,  "  is 
taken  hold  of  between  God  and  the  sinner,  when  he  yields  that  he 
is  converted.  When  he  yields  one  point  to  God's  auihorityy  he 
yields  all."  This  is  evidently  another  gospel.  The  apostles  urge 
all  men  to  believe  in  the  Saviour  because  faith  is  in  itself  a  proper 
and  a  most  important  duty — but  Mr.  Finney  deems  it  of  no  import- 
ance, save  as  it  manifests  submission  to  the  authority  of  the  Great 
Ruler,  and  thinks  it  unsuitable  to  urge  it  upon  any  sinner  therefore, 
unless  it  be  one  whose  heart  has  assumed  a  hostile  attitude  towards 
the  claims  of  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  true  Messiah.  How  widely, 
indeed,  does  this  diflfer  from  the  gospel  revealed  to  us  from  heaven, 
which  places  faith  at  the  head  of  human  duties,  teaching  us  that  it 
is  the  instrumental  cause  of  our  forgiveness,  that  it  unites  us  to  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  is  the  mediate  source  of  all  our  spiritual 
strength ! 

As  the  duty  presented  by  Mr.  Finney  to  the  sinner's  mind  is 
different  from  that  commonly  urged  in  the  Bible,  so  does  he  employ 
diflferent  motives  to  induce  compliance.  The  chief  motive  upon 
which  he  relies  is,  that  it  is  ri^ht  to  acknowledge  God  and  submit 
to  him  as  our  Great  Ruler.  We  can  now  see  another  reason  why 
he  assumed  the  strange  position  upon  which  we  have  already 
commented,  that  "  It  is  the  Tightness  of  a  duty  that  must  influence 
the  mind  if  it  would  act  virtuously."  Man  in  his  natural  state  can 
be  made  to  see  that  it  is  right  for  him  to  submit  to  God,  but  he 
cannot  be  made  to  perceive  His  moral  glory,  or  to  feel  that  His 
character  is  lovely.  As  he  cannot  receive  the  things  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  Mr.  Finney  is  therefore  driven  to  the  necessity  of  seeking 
other  things  which  he  can  receive.  He  endeavours,  by  developing 
the  useful  tendency  of  the  principles  of  the  divine  government  in 
contrast  with  the  injurious  influence  of  selfishness,  to  produce  a 
conviction  in  the  sinner's  mind  that  it  is  right  for  God  to  reign  ; 
and  upon  this  conviction  he  relies  to  induce  the  sinner  to  change  his 
voluntary  preference,  and  submit  to  the  righteous  rule  of  his 
Creator.  In  one  of  his  sermons,  after  describing  to  the  sinner  how 
he  must  change  his  heart,  he  goes  through  a  kind  of  rehearsal 
of  the  performance.  He  begs  the  sinner  to  give  him  his  attention 
while  he  places  before  him  "  such  considerations  as  are  best 
calculated  to  induce  the  state  of  mind  which  constitutes  a 
change  of  heart."  In  presenting  these  best  considerations,  he  dwells 
upon  "  the  unreasonableness  and  hatefulncss  of  selfishness,"  "  the 
reasonableness  and  utility  of  benevolence,"  "  the  reasons  why  God 
should  govern  the  universe,"  &c.  His  remarks  upon  these  topics 
are  protracted  through  ten  or  twelve  octavo  pages,  in  the  whole 


ON   REVIVALS   OF  RELIGION.  101 

of  which,  about  as  many  lines  are  devoted  to  a  frigid  allusion  to 
the  justice  and  mercy  displayed  in  the  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ. 
In  a  previous  passage  of  the  same  sermon  he  says,  "  The  offer  of 
reconciliation  annihilates  the  influence  of  despair,  and  gives  to 
conscience  its  utmost  power."  He  seems  here  to  limit  the 
eflicacy  of  the  gospel,  to  its  opening  the  way  for  the  operation 
of  existing  motives  upon  the  heart  of  man.  And  his  practice  is 
certainly  consistent  with  this  low  view  of  the  gospel.  The  con- 
siderations which  he  brings  forward,  as  best  adapted  to  induce 
the  sinner  to  change  his  heart,  are  almost  exclusively  such  as 
are  furnished  by  natural  religion.  We  hear  next  to  nothing  of  the 
grace  and  glory  of  God  as  they  shine  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ, 
of  the  wondrous  love  of  a  dying  Saviour,  of  the  demerit  of  sin 
as  illustrated  by  His  death,  or  of  the  guilt  of  the  sinner  in  remain- 
ing insensible  to  the  motives  which  address  him  from  Calvary 
Our  Saviour  intimates  that  all  other  sin  is  comparatively  lost  in  the 
sin  of  rejecting  Him  ;  and  the  apostles  refer  to  the  neglect  of  the 
"great  salvation " provided  for  man,  as  presenting  the  most  odious 
form  of  human  guilt.  To  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  indeed, 
do  they  continually  recur  for  the  illustration  and  enforcement  of 
all  human  duties.  They  make  known  nothing  save  Jesus  Christ, 
and  Him  crucified.  This  is  the  great  central  source  of  light  and 
heat.  Whatever  may  be  the  point  of  departure,  how  uniformly  do 
they  carry  us  to  the  Cross,  and  bid  us  thence  look  at  the  character 
of  God,  and  the  duty  of  man.  But  when  Mr.  Finney  professedly 
addresses  himself  to  the  task  of  presenting  the  considerations  best 
adapted  to  move  the  heart  of  the  sinner,  he  thinks  he  can  find  a 
better  point  of  view.  He  takes  his  stand  amidst  the  wonders  of 
creation ;  he  finds  in  the  character  there  developed,  and  the  rela- 
tions there  established  between  man  and  his  Maker,  the  right  and 
the  duty  of  God  to  govern  and  man's  obligations  to  obey — "  the 
reasonableness  and  utility  of  virtue — the  unreasonableness,  guilt,  and 
evil  of  sin :" — hence  he  charges  the  sinner  with  having  "  set  his 
unsanctified  feet  upon  the  principles  of  eternal  righteousness,  lifted 
up  his  hands  against  the  throne  of  the  Almighty,  set  at  naught  the 
authority  of  God  and  the  rights  of  man  !"  We  do  not  deny  the 
validity  of  these  considerations,  upon  which  he  chiefly  dwells ;  but 
we  do  deny  that  the  truths  involved  in  them  are  the  peculiar  truths 
of  the  gospel,  or  that  they  are  those  which  the  apostles  deemed 
best  adapted  to  become  "  the  wisdom  of  God  and  the  power  of 
God  unto  salvation."  Throughout  his  whole  system  indeed,  it  is 
painful  to  see  how  small  a  space  is  allotted  to  the  Cross  of  Christ. 
Often  where  it  might  be  expected  to  stand  forth  conspicuous,  it 
seems  to  be,  of  set  design,  excluded.  In  this  same  sermon,  when 
defending  the  reasonableness  of  the  "  conditions  of  the  gospel," 
he  tells  the  sinner  that  faith  is  reasonable,  because  "  nothing  but 
faith  in  what  God  tells  him,  can  influence  him  to  take  the  path 
that  leads  to  heaven."  The  faith  of  which  he  here  speaks  is  a 
'*  condition  of  the  gospel,"  and  yet  he  represents  it  in  no  other 


102  ON  REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION. 

light  than  as  a  general  belief  in  the  truth  of  God*s  word ;  and 
justifies  its  requirement  s6lely  on  the  ground  of  its  tendency  to 
make  man  holy.  There  is  no  hint  of  that  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  so  often  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures,  by  which  the  soul 
commits  itself  to  Him  as  its  Saviour,  and  becomes  a  partaker  of  the 
benefits  of  his  redemption — no  allusion  to  the  reasonableness  of  this 
condition,  on  the  ground  of  its  rendering  to  God  all  the  glory  of 
our  salvation.  We  see  not  how  any  pious  mind,  accustomed  to 
look  to  Jesus  Christ  for  all  its  strength  and  joy  and  glory  can  pass 
through  this  new  system,  without  being  constrained  at  every  step 
to  cry  out,  "  Ye  have  taken  away  my  Lord,  and  I  know  not  where 
ye  have  laid  Him." 

Another  illustration,  trifling  it  is  true,  when  compared  with  the 
one  we  have  just  presented,  but  yet  worthy  of  notice,  of  the  diffi- 
culty under  which  Mr,  Finney  labours,  in  carrying  out  his  views 
of  regeneration,  is  found  in  the  necessity  which  is  laid  upon  him  of 
violating  the  established  meaning  of  words.  A  new  heart  is  a  new 
act.  In  regeneration  no  principle  is  implanted  in  the  mind,  but  the 
beginning  and  end  of  the  process  is  in  a  new  act ;  and  consequently 
the  process  of  the  divine  life  in  the  soul  of  man  is  a  series  of  acts — 
there  is  no  growth  of  anything  which  lays  the  foundation  of  those  acts 
and  disposes  to  the  performance  of  them.  He  not  only  believes  this 
to  be  true,  but  thinks  it  vastly  important  that  others  should  be  con- 
vinced of  its  truth.  The  world  has  hitherto  been  ignorant  of  the  true 
nature  of  religion  and  the  method  of  its  progress  in  the  heart.  He 
expresses  his  doubt  whether  one  professor  of  religion  out  often  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  if  asked  what  sanctification  is,  could  give  a 
right  answer.  They  would  speak  of  it,  "  as  if  it  were  a  sort  of 
washing  off  of  some  defilement," — or  they  would  represent  it  as 
the  growth  of  some  principle,  or  germ,  or  seed,  or  sprout,  implanted 
in  the  soul.  "  But  sanctification,"  he  says,  "  is  obedience.*'  Of 
course,  to  sanctify  must  mean  to  obey ;  and  to  be  sanctified  is  to 
be  obeyed.  Now  we  charitably  hope  that  Mr.  Finney  has  under- 
rated the  number  of  those  who  could  give  a  right  answer  to 
this  question  ;  for  we  presume  that  more  than  nine  out  of  ten  of 
the  professors  of  religion  in  New  York  have  been  at  school,  and 
can  read  a  dictionary,  if  not  the  Bible  and  the  catechisms  of  their 
church,  and  surely  not  one,  thus  qualified,  could  ever  think  of  giv- 
ing his  definition  of  sanctification. 

We  have  already  exposed  the  insufficiency  of  Mr.  Finney's  the- 
ory ;  and  in  testimony  thereof  have  adduced  his  own  departure,  in 
carrying  out  his  theory,  from  the  instructions  and  motives  deve- 
loped in  the  gospel.  He  thus  evidently  betrays  his  own  convic- 
tion that  the  duties  which  the  apostles  commonly  urge  upon  the 
impenitent  are  not  consistent  with  his  scheme ;  and  tbat  the  mo- 
tives they  present  are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  require  a  correspond- 
ing disposition  of  heart.  The  force  of  the  objections  we  have 
brought  forward,  is  not  at  all  diminished  by  the  diflferent  form  in 


ON  REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION.  lOft 

which  he  sometimes  states  his  doctrine  of  the  new  heart.  He  has 
a  class  of  passages  in  which  he  represents  the  spiritual  heart,  as 
"  That  deep-seated,  but  voluntary  preference  of  the  mind  which 
lies  back  of  all  its  other  voluntary  affections  and  emotions,  and 
from  which  they  take  their  character."  If  by  "  preference,"  be 
meant  such  an  inclination  as  he  has  elsewhere  described  under 
that  name,  which  is  not  an  object  of  consciousness,  and  makes 
itself  known  only  by  its  influence  over  our  acts  ;  and  by  its  being 
"  deep-seated,"  that  is,  seated  in  the  will  itself,  using  the  term  in  its 
larger  sense,  and  for  that  reason  entitled  to  the  epithet  "  volun- 
tary," we  should  have  no  objection  to  this  account  of  the  matter. 
This  is  precisely  our  idea  of  a  disposition.  But  this  is  not  his 
meaning.  The  pre^rence  which  he  here  intends,  is  a  conscious 
act  of  the  mind.  It  still  remains  then  for  him  to  show  how  the 
mind  can  be  induced  to  prefer  the  glory  of  God,  as  the  supreme 
end  of  pursuit,  when  it  is  blind  to  that  glory,  and  if  we  may  credit 
the  apostle,  in  such  a  state,  that  until  renewed,  it  cannot  know  it 
Another  difficulty,  too,  is  started  by  the  passage  we  have  just 
quoted  from  him.  It  seems  that  we  are  to  look  back  from  every 
other  voluntary  affection  and  emotion  of  mind  to  this  "  deep-seated 
preference,"  to  find  their  moral  character.  But  as  this  preference 
is  itself  but  a  voluntary  exercise  of  mind,  and  differs  from  its  other 
voluntary  exercises  only  by  being  more  deep-seated,  it  would 
seem  that  we  ought  to  look  back  to  something  else  for  its  moral 
character.  It  is  impossible  for  us  to  imagine  how  one  voluntary 
exercise  of  mind  can  possess  a  moral  character,  independent  of  the 
subjective  motives  which  prompted  it,  while  all  other  affections 
and  emotions  are  good  or  evil  only  through  their  connexion  with 
this  one.  Is  it  not  wonderful  that  with  such  beams  in  his  own  eye, 
he  should  be  endeavouring  to  pluck  out  motes  from  the  eyes  of 
others  ! 

Mr.  Finney  asserts  the  perfect,  unqualified  ability  of  man  to 
regenerate  himself.  It  is  easier,  indeed,  he  says,  for  him  to  com- 
ply with  the  commands  of  God  than  to  reject  them.  He  tells  his 
congregation  that  they  "  might  with  much  more  propriety  ask, 
when  the  meeting  is  dismissed,  how  they  should  go  home,  than  to 
ask  how  they  should  change  their  hearts."  He  declares  that  they 
who  teach  the  sinner  that  he  is  unable  to  repent  and  believe  with- 
out the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  insult  his  understanding  and  mock 
his  hopes — they  utter  a  libel  upon  Almighty  God — they  make  God 
an  infinite  tyrant — they  lead  the  sinner  very  consistently  to  justify 
himself — if  what  they  say  is  true,  the  sinner  ought  to  hate  God, 
and  so  should  all  other  beings  hate  him — as  some  have  humor- 
ously and  truly  said,  they  preach,  "  You  can  and  you  can't,  you 
shall  and  you  shan't,  you  will  and  you  won't,  you'll  be  damn'd  if 
you  do,  you'll  be  damn'd  if  you  don't."  It  has  been  reserved,  we 
imagine,  for  the  refined  and  delicate  taste  of  Mr.  Finney  to  dis- 
cover the  humour  of  this  miserable  doggerel.  He  is  obviously 
much  delighted  with  it,  and,  like  all  his  other  good  things,  has 


f04:  ON   REVIVALS    OF   RELIGION. 

worked  it  up  more  than  once.  We  hope  the  next  compiler  of  the 
beauties  of  American  poetry  will  pay  a  due  deference  to  his  com- 
mendation, and  assign  a  conspicuous  place  to  this  precious  mor^eau. 
Most  professors  of  religion,  he  says,  pray  for  sinners,  that  God 
would  enable  them  to  repent.  Such  prayers  he  declares  to  be  an 
insult  to  God.  He  thinks  it  a  great  error  to  tell  the  sinner  to  pray 
for  a  new  heart,  or  to  pray  for  the  Holy  Ghost  to  show  him  his  sins. 
**  Some  persons,"  he  says,  "  seem  to  suppose  that  the  Spirit  is 
employed  to  give  the  sinner  power, — that  he  is  unable  to  obey 
God  without  the  Spirit's  agency.  I  confess  I  am  alarmed  when  I  hear 
such  declarations  as  these  ;  and  were  it  not  that  I  suppose  there 
is  a  sense  in  which  a  man's  heart  may  be  better  than  his  head,  I 
should  feel  bound  to  maintain  that  persons  h#lding  this  sentiment 
were  not  Christians  at  all.'*  We  have  certainly  never  met  with  a 
more  singularly  extravagant  and  unfortunate  declaration  than  the 
one  last  quoted.  Who  are  the  persons  who  have  held  and  taught 
this  sentiment,  so  inconsistent  with  Christianity?  Why,  at  the 
head  of  the  list  stand  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles.  "  No  man,** 
said  Christ,  "  can  come  to  me  except  the  Father  which  hath  sent 
me  draw*  him."  And  the  apostles  refer  continually  to  the  abso- 
lute dependence  of  man  upon  God  for  the  necessary  strength  to 
perform  his  duties  aright.  Not  one  of  those  holy  men  felt  that  he 
was  of  himself  "  sufficient  for  these  things."  Their  uniform  feel- 
ing seems  to  have  been,  "  I  can  do  all  things  through  Christ,  who 
strengtheneth  me."  Mr.  Finney  not  only  believes  that  we  can  do 
all  things  without  any  strength  from  Christ,  but  he  makes  this  one 
of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity.  The  apostles  ex- 
horted men  to  be  strong  in  the  grace  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  and 
they  prayed  for  those  to  whom  they  wrote,  that  the  Lord  would 
strengthen  them  with  might  by  his  Spirit, — that  He  would  make 
them  perfect,  establish,  strengthen,  settle  them.  But  Mr.  Finney 
says,  to  pray  that  God  would  help  the  sinner  to  repent,  is  an  insult 
to  God ;  as  if  God  had  commanded  the  sinner  to  do  what  he  can- 
not do.  Now  the  Christian  has  at  least  as  much  ability  to  be  per- 
fectly holy  as  the  sinner  has  to  repent.  God  commands  Christians 
to  be  perfect,  and  of  course,  when  the  apostles  prayed  that  the 
Lord  would  strengthen  them  and  make  them  perfect,  they  prayed 
"  as  if  God  had  commanded  the  Christian  to  do  what  he  cannot 
do."  These  prayers,  then,  uttered  under  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  must  have  been  "an  insult  to  God!"  Mr.  Finney 
cannot  relieve  the  character  of  his  reckless,  irreverent  assertions, 
by  saying  that  the  sacred  writers  meant  to  represent  nothing  more 
than  the  unwillingness  of  the  sinner  to  do  his  duty.  Beyond  all 
dispute  they  represent  this  unwillingness  under  the  form  of  an  ina- 
bility, and  it  is  against  those  who  describe  it  by  precisely  equiva- 
lent terms  that  Mr.  F.  raves  with  such  infuriate  bitterness.  There 
is  a  question  here,  not  between  him  and  us,  but  between  him  and 
the  apostles,  whether  they  employed  proper  and  safe  language  in 
describing  the  moral  condition  of  man  and  the  nature  of  his  de* 


ON   REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION.  105 

pendence  on  divine  aid.  He  may  perhaps  say  that  the  language 
employed  by  the  apostles  was  perfectly  proper  at  that  time,  but  as 
their  statements  have  been  perverted  and  become  the  source  of 
ruinous  errors,  it  is  now  necessary  to  employ  more  explicit  and 
guarded  language.  We  suppose  this  will  be  the  nature  of  his  de- 
fence, as  he  distinctly  takes  the  ground  that  it  will  not  answer  to 
preach  the  same  class  of  truths,  or  to  exhibit  them  in  the  same 
manner,  in  any  two  ages  of  the  Church,  or  in  any  two  places.  At 
each  time  and  place  the  sinner  is  entrenched  behind  his  own  pecu- 
liar errors,  and  the  preacher  must  be  careful  not  to  present  any 
truth  which  he  can  so  pervert  as  to  fortify  himself  in  his  refuges  of 
lies.  But  is  it  true  that  any  such  change  can  take  place,  from  age 
to  age,  in  the  natural  character  or  the  accidental  circumstances  of 
manias  to  call  for  any  important  change  in  the  matter  or  manner 
of  religious  instruction  ?  What  error  has  ever  existed  that  does 
not  find  its  refutation  in  some  revealed  truth  ?  It  is  a  very  dan- 
gerous principle  to  admit,  that  we  are  at  liberty  to  omit  such  truths 
of  the  Bible  as  we  deem  unsuitable  to  existing  emergencies,  and 
to  exhibit  others  in  a  very  different  light  from  that  in  which  they 
are  left  by  inspired  writers.  It  virtually  suspends  the  whole  of  the 
divine  revelation  upon  the  discretion  and  wisdom  of  man.  But  if 
true,  it  has  no  application  to  the  case  now  before  us.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  the  perversion  of  the  truth  which  Mr.  F.  thinks  can 
only  be  met  by  varying  the  manner  in  which  the  apostles  repre- 
sent man's  dependence,  is  a  modern  error.  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
undeniable  that  this  very  error  prevailed  in  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles. Paul  met  with  the  same  objections  that  are  now  current, 
drawn  from  the  divine  sovereignty  and  human  dependence ;  and 
how  does  he  refute  them  ?  By  a  flat  denial  that  man  is  unable  of 
himself  to  do  his  duty?  Or  by  a  modification,  a  softening  down 
of  his  previous  statements  ?  No — he  re-asserts  the  perverted  doc- 
trines in  the  face  of  the  objections  raised  against  them.  He  does 
not,  nor  does  any  one  of  the  sacred  writers,  affirm  in  a  single 
instance  that  the  sinner  is  able  to  obey  the  divine  commands.  Not 
a  text  of  Scripture  can  be  found  in  which  this  is  declared,  while  a 
multitude  can  be  produced  which  explicitly  and  in  so  many  words 
deny  it.  Will  Mr.  F.  say  that  the  apostles  urged  upon  men  obe- 
dience to  the  divine  commands,  and  thus  virtually  declared  their 
ability  to  obey  ?  Then  why  does  he  not  declare  it  in  the  same  vir- 
tual manner?  The  same  reasons  existed  then  as  now.for  a  direct 
assertion  of  the  sinner's  ability,  and  yet  it  was  in  no  case  made. 
Why,  then,  should  he  make  it  now,  and  dwell  upon  it,  and  magnify 
it  into  an  important,  nay,  an  essential  part  of  the  Gospel,  so  that 
he  who  disbelieves  it  cannot  be  a  Christian  at  all  ? 

But  it  is  not  true  that  in  urging  the  commands  of  God,  the  sacred 
writers  teach  the  entire  and  independent  ability  of  man  to  obey. 
Mr.  Finney  does  not  pretend  to  bring  forward  a  single  passage  of 
Scripture  in  which  his  doctrine  is  directly  taught ;  he  finds  it  prov- 
ed in  no  other  way  than  by  his  own  inferences  from  such  com- 


106  ON   REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION. 

mands  as,  "  Make  to  yourself  a  new  heart,"  "  My  son,  give  me 
thy  heart."  His  brief  argument  for  human  ability  is,  God  com- 
mands man  to  obey,  therefore  he  can  obey.  He  does  not  even 
allude  to  the  distinction  often  taken  between  natural  and  moral 
ability.  He  teaches  broadly  without  any  qualification  whatever, 
that  a  divine  command  implies  the  possession  of  all  the  ability 
necessary  to  obedience.  Obligation  and  ability,  he  says,  must  be 
commensurate.  And  how  does  he  prove  the  truth  of  this  last  pro- 
position ?  In  no  other  way  than  by  repeating,  times  without  num- 
ber, that  to  teach  otherwise  makes  God  an  infinite  tyrant.  But 
the  Bible  does  not  inform  us  that  there  is  any  tyranny  in  God's 
commanding  men  to  do  what  they  cannot  do..  It  teaches  us  direct- 
ly the  contrary,  by  making  known  the  duty  of  man  to  receive  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  while  it  at  the  same  time  declares,  that 
without  divine  assistance  he  cannot  receive  or  know  them.  He 
must  refer,  then,  for  the  truth  of  this  maxim,  to  our  natural  sense 
of  justice.  We  might  object  to  this  reference  of  a  case  already  so 
clearly  decided  by  a  higher  authority ;  but  we  have  no  fear  that 
there  will  be  found  here  any  discrepance  between  the  teachings  of 
revelation  and  the  testimony  of  man's  conscience,  if  the  latter  be 
rightly  interpreted.  Our  natural  sense  of  justice  does  indeed  teach 
us  that  no  obligation  can  rest  upon  man  to  perform  any  duty  for 
which  he  has  not  the  necessary  faculties ;  and  that  he  is  not 
responsible  for  failure  in  anything  which  he  was  willing  to  do,  but 
was  hindered  in  the  execution  by  causes  beyond  his  control.  When 
applied  to  such  cases  as  these,  there  is  a  self-evidence  belonging  to 
the  maxim  in  question  which  places  its  truth  beyond  all  dispute. 
Mr.  Finney's  mistake  lies  in  extending  it  to  cases  which  lie  altoge- 
ther beyond  the  limits  within  which  it  was  generalized.  We  deny 
that  the  common  sense  of  mankind  has  ever  required  that  we  should 
possess  the  ability  to  change  our  inclinations,  as  the  condition  of 
our  responsibility  for  their  exercise.  To  illustrate  this,  let  us  sup- 
pose the  case  of  a  man  under  the  influence  of  any  dominant  pas- 
sion. Before  he  has  long  indulged  this  passion,  it  would  be  com- 
paratively easy  for  him  to  relinquish  it.  As  he  gives  way  to  its 
impulses,  however,  its  power  over  him  increases,  until  at  length  it 
binds  in  complete  subjection  to  itself  all  the  other  affections  of  his 
nature.  At  each  step  of  its  progress  the  difficulty  of  subduing  it  is 
increased ;  and  yet  who  will  deny  that  the  sin  of  cherishing  is 
accurately  {proportioned  to  this  difficulty  ?  The  law  of  continuity, 
which  has  place  in  moral  reasoning,  as  well  as  in  that  "  algebra" 
which  is  to  Mr.  F.  the  symbol  of  incomprehensibility,  would  teach 
us  hence  to  infer  that  the  guilt  is  greatest  when  the  difficulty  is 
greatest,  and  that  the  former  has  its  highest  form  of  aggravation 
in  the  insurmountable  character  of  the  latter.  The  language  of 
the  whole  world  is  framed  in  recognition  of  this  truth.  We  speak 
familiarly  of  the  difficulty  which  men  find  in  changing  their  incli- 
nations, without  ever  conceiving  that  we  thereby  lessen  their  obli- 
gation; nay,  we  consider  the  cup  of  their  guilt  full  to  the  brim, 


I> 


ON  REVIVALS    OF   RELIGION.  107 


when  they  have  so  destroyed  their  ability  to  become  virtuous,  that 
we  may  properly  say  of  them,   "  They  cannot  cease  to  do  evil, 
and  learn  to  do  well."  When  a  paramount  inclination,  like  a  strong 
man  armed,  has  taken  possession  of  the  heart,  and,  with  a  despot- 
ism peculiar  to  itself,  banished  all  but  its  own  ideas  and  emotions, 
how  can  it  be  dispossessed  ?     Will  it  yield  to   a  volition  of  the 
mind  ?     We  all  know  it  will  not,  and  Mr.  Finney  himself  admits 
it.     He  says  that  our  affections  will  not  obey  the  bidding  of  the 
will — we  cannot  summon  or  dismiss  them  by  a  volition.     This  ad- 
mission is  fatal  to  him.     The  mind,  he  says,  can  operate  upon  its 
inclinations  and  affections  only  by  changing  the  object  of  thought ; 
and  this  change  it  certainly  cannot  effect  in  a  moment.     When  any 
strong  inclination  is  in  exercise,  the  mind  has  an  attraction  for 
those  ideas  and  considerations  which  tend  to  sustain  and  increase 
its  present  emotions,  while  it  repels  all  others  to  an  unseen  distance, 
and  some  little  time  at  least  is  necessary  before  it  can  succeed  in 
calling  up  and  keeping  before  it  those  objects  of  thought  which 
may  introduce  a  different  class  of  feelings.     Upon  his   own  ac- 
count of  the  matter,  no  man  can,  in  an  instant,  change  a  strong 
inclination.     And   yet   if  that   inclination    be    an  evil    one,    the 
obligation    to    an    immediate   change    is   evident.      What,    then, 
has    become    of  the    maxim    that    obligation    and    ability    are 
commensurate  ?     The  sinner  who  perceives  the  opposition  of  the 
divine  government  to  his  selfish  plans,  and  whose  heart  is  on  that 
account    filled   with   emotions   of  hatred   towards   God,   cannot 
instantly,  if  at  all,  turn  his  mind  to  such  views  of  the  divine  cha- 
racter as  will  inspire  him  with  love.     And  vet  the  duty  of  imme- 
diate, instant  submission  is  very  evident.     We  see,  then,  that  power 
is  not  the  exact  measure  of  obligation.     One  instance  of  the  fail- 
ure of  the  truth  of  this  maxim  is  as  good  as  a  thousand,  since  one 
is  enough  to  destroy  its  generality,  and  leave  the  arguments  for 
the  inability  of  the  sinner  standing  in  all  their  force,  unless  they 
can  be  overthrown  by  considerations  drawn  from  other  sources. 
We  do  utterly  deny  that  the  sinner  is  able,  in  the  sense  which  Mr. 
Finney  contends  for,  to  obey  the  divine  commands.     Jn  proof  of 
this  we  say  that  he  is  dead  in  trespasses  and  in  sins,  and  as  the 
dead  man  is  insensible  to  all  things,  so  is  he  to  those  objects  which, 
if  rightly  perceived,  would  be  adapted  to  kindle  within  him  holy 
desires  and  affections.     Until  renewed,  he  cannot  know  the  things 
which  he  must  know  before  he  can  discharge  his  duty.     And  the 
arguments  which  we  urge  from  reason  and  Scripture  in  defence 
of  these  views,  are  not  touched  by  the  assertion  that  obligation 
and  ability  must  be  commensurate  with  each  other.     We  have 
already  produced  one  instance  in  which,  upon  Mr.  Finney's  own 
admission,  this  maxim  fails  to  be  true :  and  we  are  now  about  to 
bring  forward  another,  in  which  he  virtually  confesses  that  it  is 
never  true  when  the  affections  and  inclinations  of  the  heart  are  in 
question.     In  explaining  why  there  can  be  no  repentance  in  hell 
he  says,  when  a  man's  "  reputation  is  so  completely  gone  that  he 


108  ON   REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION. 

has  no  hope  of  retrieving  it,  in  this  state  of  despair  there  is  no 
possibility  of  reclaiming  him  ;  no  motive  can  reach  him  and  call 
forth  an  effort  to  redeem  his  character."  Now,  in  view  of  this 
admission,  let  it  be  true  that  obligation  and  ability  are  commensu- 
rate, and  what  is  the  consequence  ?  Why,  that  when  a  man  has 
become  so  vicious  as  to  ruin  his  reputation — when  he  has  reached 
such  a  confirmed  state  of  iniquity  that  he  himself  and  all  others 
despair  of  his  ever  becoming  virtuous — when  he  has  severed  the 
last  link  that  bound  him  to  humanity,  and  is  floating  loose  from 
his  species,  a  demon  or  a  brute — then  is  he  released  from  all  ac- 
countability !  Mr.  Finney  adds,  that  in  hell  *'  the  sinner  will  be 
in  despair,  and  while  in  despair  it  is  a  moral  impossibility  to  turn 
his  heart  to  God."  But  will  he  deny  that  the  sinner  in  hell  is  under 
any  less  obligation  to  love  God,  on  account  of  this  admitted  im- 
possibility of  loving  Him  ?  Betraying,  as  he  here  does,  his  know- 
ledge of  the  limitations  to  which  his  favourite  standard  of  obliga- 
tion is  subject,  we  should  suspect  him  of  a  set  design  to  deceive, 
when  he  uses  it  so  often  in  its  broad,  unqualified  sense,  and  takes 
his  stand  upon  it  to  thunder  out  his  furious  anathemas  against 
others,  had  he  not  furnished  us,  through  all  his  writings,  with  such 
abundant  evidence  of  his  incapacity  to  take  into  view  more  than 
a  very  small  part  of  one  subject  at  the  same  time.  With  the  ex- 
posure of  the  error  involved  in  his  position,  that  God  cannot  con- 
sistently command  man  to  do  that  which  he  cannot  perform,  we 
shall  take  our  leave  of  this  part  of  the  subject,  for  he  has  not 
brought  forward  the  semblance  of  an  argument  in  favour  of  the 
sinner's  ability  to  regenerate  himself,  which  does  not  directly 
involve  the  universal  truth  of  this  erroneous  maxim.* 

We  have  already  occupied  so  much  space,  that  we  cannot  ex- 
hibit as  fully  as  we  would  wish,  Mr.  Finney's  views  of  the  doc- 
trine of  divine  influence.  His  theory  on  this  subject  is  expressed 
in  the  following  extract.  "  The  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
does  not  consist  merely  in  giving  instruction,  but  in  compelling 
him  to  consider  truths  which  he  already  knows — to  think  upon  his 
ways  and  turn  to  the  Lord.  He  urges  upon  his  attention  and  con- 
sideration those  motives  which  he  hates  to  consider  and  feel  the 
weight  of"  Again  he  says — "  It  is  indeed  the  pressing  of  truth 
upon  the  sinner's  consideration  that  induces  him  to  turn."  It  will 
be  at  once  perceived  that  he  limits  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
in  the  regeneration  of  the  sinner,  to  the  simple  presentation  of  truth 
to  the  mind.  Said  we  not  truly,  that  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  comes  in  here  only  by  the  way  ?  It  is  strictly  parenthetical, ; 
and  has  about  as  much  fitness  and  meaning,  in  connexion  with  the  : 
rest  of  his  scheme,  as  "  the  grace  of  God"  has  in  the  Rex,  Dei 
GRATIA,  on  the  disk  of  a  Spanish  dollar.  He  maintains  that 
the  truth   of  God,   if  adequately  considered,  would  convert  the 

♦  For  a  full  discussion  of  the  "  Inability  of  the  Sinner,"  see  Biblical  Repertory 
for  1831,  p.  360,  or  "  Princeton  Essays,"  Series  First. 


ON   REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION.  109 

sinner  ;  and  that  he  has  a  perfect  and  independent  power  to  keep 
that  truth  before  his  mind.  Surely,  then,  the  agency  of  the 
Spirit  is  superfluous.  It  is  a  new  cause  introduced  to  account 
for  the  production  of  an  effect  for  which  we  already  have  an 
adequate  cause.  But  though  he  has,  inconsistently  we  think, 
retained  the  doctrine  of  divine  influence,  he  has  so  modified  it  that 
it  has  but  few,  if  any,  points  of  resemblance  with  the  scriptural 
Representations  of  this  subject.  His  common  method  of  illustrat- 
ing the  nature  of  the  Spirit's  agency  is  by  a  reference  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  a  lawyer  persuades  a  jury,  or  an  orator  sways  his 
audience.  The  Spirit  merely  presents  the  truth,  and  the  moral 
suasion  of  the  truth  regenerates  the  sinner,  or  rather  induces  him 
to  regenerate  himself.  It  is  not  thus  that  the  Scriptures  represent 
it.  What  mind  can  read  his  frequent  illustration  of  an  advocate 
persuading  his  hearers,  and  then  pass  to  the  scriptural  one,  of  a 
power  that  raises  from  death  unto  life,  without  feeling  that  the  agen- 
cies which  can  be  properly  set  forth  under  such  dissimilar  symbols 
must  be  specifically  and  widely  diflJerent  from  each  other?  If  he 
has  given  us  the  correct  account  of  the  divine  agency  exerted  in 
the  salvation  of  man,  then  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  language  of 
the  sacred  writers,  on  this  subject,  is  most  delusively  extravagant. 
He  does  sometimes  describe  the  Spirit  as  forcing  the  truth  home 
with  tremendous  power, — pouring  the  expostulation  home — keep- 
ing the  truth  in  warm  contact  with  the  mind — gathering  up  a 
world  of  motive,  and  pouring  it  in  upon  the  soul  in  a  focal  blaze. 
Of  these  and  similar  expressions,  the  "  warm  contact,"  and  the 
"  focal  blaze,"  seem  to  be  his  favourites,  as  he  has  most  frequently 
repeated  them.  They  are  but  the  rays  with  which  he  seeks  to 
conceal  from  his  own  view  and  that  of  others,  his  meagre  skeleton 
of  a  Scriptural  truth.  He  seems  to  resort  to  these  expressions 
because  he  feels  the  inaptness  and  poverty  of  his  plain  statements. 
But  it  is  as  bad  to  lose  one's  self  in  a  fog  of  metaphor,  as  in  that 
"  fog  of  metaphysics"  which  he  so  much  dreads.  His  "  close  con- 
tact," and  "warm  contact,"  and  "focal  blaze,"  and  "pouring  home," 
mean  nothing  more  than  that  the  Spirit  presents  the  truth  to  the 
mind.  However  the  form  of  expression  may  be  varied,  this  ex- 
hausts the  subject  of  his  interference.  He  does  nothing  to  awak- 
en the  attention  any  further  than  the  truth  which  he  offers  awakens 
it  V  nothing  to  arouse  the  feelings — nothing  to  make  the  scales  fall 
from  the  eye  of  the  mind  that  it  may  perceive  the  truth — nothing 
to  change  the  disposition  of  the  heart  so  that  it  may  love  the  truth 
and  feel  its  constraining  influence.  Mr.  Finney  expressly  and 
warmly  excludes  any  direct  operation  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  mind  or 
heart.  To  suppose  any  such  agency,  he  says  with  an  irreverence  of 
which  we  hope  but  few  could  be  guilty,  is  to  suppose  a  "  physical 
scuffling"  between  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  sinner!  As  the  Spirit 
awakens  no  inclination  of  the  heart  to  go  forth  and  embrace  the 
truth,  the  warm  contact  with  the  mind,  into  which  he  brings  it,  can 
refer  only  to  its  continuous  presentation.     When  the  truth  is  placed 


110  ON   REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION. 

before  the  mind,  and  the  attention  is  fixed,  the  contact  is  complete, 
and  cannot  be  rendered  any  closer  or  warmer  but  by  the  instru- 
mentality of  the  affections,  upon  which  Mr.  F.  asserts  the  Spirit 
exerts  no  agency.  We  have  already  shown  the  utter  inadequacy 
of  this  account  of  the  mode  of  regeneration.  Whether  the  truth 
remains  for  a  short  or  a  long  time,  in  cold  or  in  warm  contact  with 
the  unrenewed  heart,  it  will  feel  in  the  considerations  before  it  no 
sufficient  motive  for  loving  God. 

It  will  be  seen  from  Mr.  F.'s  account  of  the  Spirit's  influence, 
that  the  agency  which  He  exerts  in  the  regeneration  of  the  sinner 
is  the  same  in  kind  as  that  exerted  by  the  preacher.  Both  call  his 
attention  to  the  truth,  and  neither  of  them  does  anything  beyond 
this.  If  you  go  to  a  drunkard,  and  urge  upon  him  the  motives 
which  should  induce  him  to  abandon  his  cups,  you  have  done  for 
him  precisely  what  the  Holy  Spirit  does  for  the  sinner  in  his 
regeneration.  The  preacher,  upon  this  scheme,  has  the  same  right 
that  God  has  to  assume  to  himself  the  glory  of  the  sinner's  salva- 
tion. Indeed  Mr.  F.  fully  admits  this  in  answering  the  objection 
that  his  view  of  the  subject  '*  takes  the  work  out  of  God's  hands, 
and  robs  him  of  his  glory."  His  defence  is,  that  the  glory  belongs 
to  God,  inasmuch  as  he  caused  the  sinner  to  act.  And  mark  the 
meaning  and  force  of  his  illustration :  "  If  a  man,"  he  says,  "  had 
made  up  his  mind  to  take  his  own  life,  and  you  should,  by  taking 
the  greatest  pains  and  at  great  expense,  prevail  upon  him  to  desist, 
would  you  deserve  no  credit  for  the  influences  you  exerted  in  the 
case  ?"  Is  it  not  amazing  that  any  man  with  the  Bible  in  his  hands, 
and  professing  to  love  its  sacred  truths,  could  divide,  as  this  pas- 
sage fully  does,  the  glory  of  the  sinner's  salvation  between  God 
and  man,  ascribing  the  work  in  the  same  sense  to  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  the  preacher,  and  distributing  to  each  a  similar  meed  of  praise  ! 

Mr.  Finney  seems  to  have  a  great  objection  to  the  preaching  of 
the  doctrine  of  divine  influence  in  any  manner.  There  was  a  tract 
published  in  New  York  entitled  "  Regeneration  is  the  effect  of 
Divine  Power."  He  twice  declares  that,  "  The  very  title  to  this 
tract  is  a  stumbling  block."  He  says  that,  "  While  the  sinner's 
attention  is  directed  to  the  subject  of  the  Spirit's  influences,  his  sub- 
mission is  impossible ;"  and  that  if  the  apostles  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost had  gone  ofl*  to  drag  in  such  subjects  as  dependence  upon 
the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  manifest  that  not  one  of  their  hearers  would 
have  been  converted.  "  The  doctrine  of  election  and  divine  sove- 
reignty," he  asserts,  **  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  sinner's  duty — it 
belongs  to  the  government  of  God."  And  in  another  place  he  says, 
"  To  preach  doctrines  in  an  abstract  way,  and  not  in  reference  to 
practice,  is  absurd."  As  the  doctrine  of  divine  sovereignty  then 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  sinner's  duty,  we  suppose  that  he  in- 
tends that  it  should  not  be  preached  at  all.  Thus  does  he  distort, 
thus  would  he  conceal  from  view,  a  doctrine  which  runs  through 
the  whole  Bible,  is  incorporated  with  all  its  revelations,  and  is  the 
basement  principle  of  so  many  emotions  and  actions  ! 


ON   REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION.  Ill 

It  is  obvious  why  he  is  thus  hostile  to  divine  sovereignty.  This 
doctrine  he  thinks  is  calculated  to  keep  nnen  easy  in  their  sins.  If 
they  are  dependent  upon  God,  they  will  be  led  to  wait  for  his  ac- 
tion upon  them  before  they  begin  to  act.  No  doubt  the  truth  may 
be  thus  perverted.  But  is  not  his  doctrine  greatly  more  liable  to 
perversion  ?  He  teaches  the  sinner  that  he  has  all  the  requisite 
power  to  convert  himself.  What  more  natural  than  for  the  sinner 
to  say,  I  love  my  sins,  and  therefore  as  I  can  at  any  moment  for- 
sake them  and  make  myself  holy,  1  will  continue  to  indulge  myself? 
It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  when  Mr.  Finney  is  exposing,  in  one 
of  his  most  moving  paragraphs,  the  unfitness  of  a  deathbed  as  a 
place  for  repentance,  he  alludes  only  to  the  difficulty  of  thinking 
and  keeping  the  mind  in  warm  and  distressing  contact  with  the 
truth,  during  the  agonies  of  dissolution.  He  does  not  refer  in  the 
most  distant  manner  to  the  danger  that  the  sinner,  justly  abandoned 
of  God,  may  be  unable  on  that  account  to  change  his- heart.  Is 
there  no  danger,  too,  that  the  sinner,  so  repeatedly  assured  that 
God  would  be  an  infinite  tyrant  if  he  had  commanded  him  to  do 
what  he  cannot  do,  should  find  in  his  own  experience  that  he  can- 
not of  himself  make  a  new  heart,  and  thus  be  led  to  condemn  the 
justice  of  the  divine  requirements  ?  May  he  not  also  very  consist- 
ently say  to  his  instructer.  It  is  at  least  as  easy  for  you  to  be  per- 
fectly holy  as  it  is  for  me  to  repent — I  retort  upon  you  your  charges 
that  lama  wicked  rebel,  and  that  my  heart  has  been  case-hardened 
in  the  fires  of  hell — physician,  heal  thyself.  If  it  is  easier  for  me 
to  love  God  than  to  hate  him,  it  is  easier  for  you  to  be  perfect  than 
to  remain  imperfect.  It  is  easier  indeed  for  you  to  be  holy,  even 
as  your  Father  in  heaven  is  holy,  than  it  is  for  you  to  walk  home  ; 
to  do  the  latter  requires  that  you  should  both  be  wilh'ng  and  exert 
the  proper  muscular  action,  but  to  do  the  former  only  requires  you 
to  be  willing.  You  must  be  the  wickedest  being  in  the  universe, 
then,  to  refuse  to  perform  a  duty  so  obvious  and  so  easy. 

We  here  dismiss  this  subject  for  the  present.  As  we  haveoccu. 
pied  ourselves  with  Mr.  Finney's  doctrines,  we  have  been  led  to 
seek  them  chiefly  in  his  Sermons,  from  which  most  of  our  extracts 
have  been  taken.  We  propose  in  our  next  number  to  examine  his 
Lectures  more  particularly,  and  devtlope  the  measures  and  the 
spirit  of  this  new  system.  As  we  have  shown  that  its  doctrines 
are  not  those  of  the  Bible,  so  will  it  be  seen  that  its  spirit  is  any- 
thing rather  than  the  spirit  of  Christianity. 

We  [have  not  shown  the  discrepances  between  Mr.  Finney's 
doctrines,  and  the  standards  of  the  church  to  which  he  belongs. 
This  would  be  holding  a  light  to  the  sun.  It  is  too  evident  to  need 
elucidation,  that  on  all  the  subjects  which  we  have  gone  over,  his 
opinions  are  diametrically  opposed  to  the  standards  of  the  Presby- 
terian church,  which  he  has  solemnly  adopted.  Many  of  the  very 
expressions  and  forms  of  stating  these  doctrines  upon  which  he 
pours  out  his  profane  ridicule,  are  found  in  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
Wliy  then  does  he  remain  in  the  church  1   He  will  hold  up  to  the  de- 


112  ON   REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION. 

testation  of  his  people  a  man  who  refuses  to  pay  his  subscription  to 
the  Oneida  Institute,  because  he  conscientiously  believes  that  insti- 
tution is  doing  more  harm  than  good,  asserting  that  he  is  not  honest, 
and  more  than  insinuating  that  he  cannot  go  to  heaven.  And  can 
he  see  no  moral  dishonesty  in  remaining  in  a  church,  whose  stand- 
ards of  faith  he  has  adopted,  only  to  deny  and  ridicule  them  ?  It 
is  a  remarkable  fact  that  this  man,  thus  incorrect  in  his  doctrinal 
views,  thus  dishonest  in  his  continuance  in  a  church  whose  stand- 
ards he  disbelieves  and  contemns,  should  have  been  appointed  a 
professor  of  theology,  to  assist  in  training  up  ministers  for  our 
churches.  The  trustees  of  Oberlin  Institute  had,  to  be  sure,  a  per- 
fect right  to  appoint  him  ;  but  it  seems  to  us  very  remarkable  that 
they  should  have  selected  him,  and  rather  more  so  that  he  should 
have  felt  willing  to  undertake  the  office  of  an  instructor  in  theology. 
We  suppose,  however,  that  his  object  was  to  show  the  church  the 
way  in  which  her  ministers  should  be  trained.  We  give  him  credit 
for  his  good  intentions.  He  declares  it  to  be  a  solemn  fact,  that 
there  is  a  great  defect  in  the  present  mode  of  educating  ministers, 
and  that  the  training  they  receive  in  our  colleges  and  seminaries 
does  not  fit  them  for  their  work.  He  assures  his  readers  that  all 
the  professors  in  our  theological  seminaries  are  unfit  for  their  office  ; 
some  of  them  are  getting  back  towards  second  childhood,  and  ought 
to  resign  ;  and  none  of  them  are  such  men  as  are  needed  in  these 
days.  Now  is  it  not  very  kind  in  Mr.  Finney,  when  the  church  is 
thus  desiitute  of  men  who  can  adequately  instruct  her  ministers, 
to  step  forward  and  take  the  office  upon  himself?  No  doubt  the 
whole  Presbyterian  church  ought  to  break  forth  in  rejoicings.  But 
we  confess  we  would  rather  he  should  make  the  experiment  of  his 
ability  in  this  line  out  of  our  church.  He  will,  doubtless,  think  this 
very  unkind  and  ungrateful,  but  we  cannot  help  it.  We  tender 
him  our  thanks  for  the  substantial  service  he  has  done  the  church 
by  exposing  the  naked  deformities  of  the  New  Divinity.  He  can 
render  her  still  another,  and  in  rendering  it  perform  only  his  plain 
duty,  by  leaving  her  communion,  and  finding  one  within  which  he 
can  preach  and  publish  his  opinions  without  making  war  upon  the 
standards  in  which  he  has  solemnly  professed  his  faith. 


\ 


SECOND    ARTICLE. 

We  proceed  to  exhibit  to  our  readers  the  measures  recommended 
and  the  spirit  displayed  in  Mr.  Finney's  Lectures  on  Revivals.  We 
do  this  at  the  known  hazard  of  being  denounced  as  enemies  to 
revivals,  and  friends  of  Satan.  But  it  is  a  very  small  thing  with  us 
that  we  should  be  judged  of  Mr.  Finney's  judgment.  We,  in  com- 
mon with  all  the  Iricnds  of  pure  and  undehled  religion,  have  a 


ON  EEVIVALS   OF   RELIGION.  113 

sacred  duty  to  discharge  in  relation  to  this  subject,  from  which  no 
considerations  of  fear  or  favour  should  deter  us.  Mr.  Finney,  and 
his  followers,  have  shown  a  resolute  determination  to  persevere  in 
their  course.  It  is  surely  then  the  duty  of  those  who  believe  that 
course  to  be  detrimental  to  the  best  interests  of  religion,  to  proclaim 
their  dissent.     We  believe,  therefore  will  we  speak. 

Our  first  remark  is  upon  the  disingenuousness  of  which  Mr. 
Finney  is  guilty,  in  stating  the  question  of  New  Measures.  These 
measures,  he  says,  are  opposed  "  on  the  ground  that  they  are  in- 
novations.^* Now  he  knows  perfectly  well,  and  all  the  world 
knows,  that  this  is  not  the  ground  on  which  they  are  opposed.  Of 
the  many  testimonies  against  them,  which  have  been  published,  we 
defy  him  to  point  to  a  single  one  in  whi§h  their  novelty  is  made  the 
cause  of  their  condemnation.  And  yet  he  seeks  continually  to 
make  upon  his  reader  the  impression,  that  naught  has  been  or  can 
be  said  against  them,  save  that  they  are  new.  Who,  but  himself, 
ever  supposed  that  they  were  new  ?  Who  does  not  know  that  he 
has  picked  up  his  measures,  as  well  as  his  theology,  among  the 
castaway  rubbish  of  past  limes  ?  The  only  novelty  in  the  matter 
is,  that  these  measures  should  be  employed  in  the  Presbyterian 
church,  in  combination  with  a  false  theology  and  a  fanatical  spirit. 
Why  then,  when  Mr.  Finney  is  professedly  defending  his  course 
from  the  objections  which  have  been  urged  against  it,  does  he  con- 
fine himself  so  exclusively  to  the  single  ground  of  opposition,  that 
his  measures  are  new  ?  Why,  if  he  felt  himself  equal  to  the  task, 
did  he  not  fairly  and  honestly  meet  the  real  objections  which  have 
been  urged  against  him  ?  Such  disingenuous  evasions  always 
injure  the  cause  in  defence  of  which  they  are  employed. 

A  similar  artifice  may  be  detected  in  his  enumeration  of  New 
Measures.  "  They  are  Anxious  Meetings,  Protracted  Meetings, 
and  the  Anxious  Seat."  He  must  have  known,  while  uttering  this 
sentence,  that  the  public  estimation  has  never  ranked  these  three 
things  together ;  and  we  very  much  doubt  whether  he  has  ever 
heard  the  term  New  Measures  applied  to  the  Inquiry  Meeting  or 
the  Protracted  Meeting.     Meetings*  of  the  kind  thus  designated 


*  We  are  aware  that  the  Editor  of  the  New  York  Evangelist  has  said  that  "  before 
Mr.  Finney  arose,  Mr.  Nettleton  was  much  blamed  for  his  irregularities  and  impru- 
dence." This  piece  of  information  it  seems  came  to  Mr  Leavitt,  all  the  way  round 
by  St.  Louis.  Such  statements  are  intended  to  cast  over  Mr.  Finney  the  broad  man- 
tle of  Mr  Nettleton's  reputation  ;  or  possibly  the  design  may  be  to  make  Mr.  N. 
jointly  responsible  for  the  evils  which  are  now  seen  to  be  pouring  in  upon  the 
church,  through  the  flood-gates  which  the  modern  refijrmers  have  hoisted  What- 
ever may  be  the  object,  it  is  exceedingly  unfair  and  dishonourable  to  attempt  to 
associate  the  name  of  Mr.  Nettleton  with  a  class  of  men,  of  whom  we  know,  and 
they  too,  he  has  ever  said,  "  Oh,  my  soul,  come  not  thou  into  their  secret !"  Would 
it  not  be  well  for  the  Rev.  Editor,  before  putting  forth  statements  which  reach  him 
by  such  a  circuitous  route,  to  make  some  inquiry  as  to  their  truth  nearer  home  ? 
Mr.  Nettleton's  life  has  been  spent  chiefly  in  New  England,  and  we  challenge  Mr. 
Leavitt  to  produce,  as  authority  for  his  statement,  the  opinion  of  any  settled  minister 
in  New  England,  of  the  denomination  to  which  Mr.  N.  belongs,  who  was  not  an 
avowed  enemy  to  all  revivals. 

8 


in  ON  REVIVALS   OF  RELIGION.  ^ 

have  been  held  in  all  parts  of  our  church,  and  when  wisely  insti- 
tuted and  controlled,  have  never  within  our  knowledge  met  with 
any  opposition.  Why  then  should  he  place  the  Anxious  Seat  in 
the  same  category  with  these  institutions,  unless  it  were  furtively 
to  borrow  for  it  a  portion  of  their  admitted  respectability  ?  Doubt- 
less he  intended  that  his  triumphant  vindication  of  things  which  no 
one  has  opposed,  should  leave  a  general  impression  on  the  reader's 
mind,  of  which  the  Anxious  Seat  might  receive  the  benefit.  But 
does  he  not  know,  that  while  there  are  some  who  will  be  imposed 
upon  by  such  chicanery,  there  are  others  who  will  penetrate  the 
flimsy  deception,  and  turn  with  disgust  from  a  cause  thus  advocat- 
ed ?  Or  does  he  take  it  for  granted,  that  among  his  "  fit  audience," 
would  that  we  could  add,#  though  few,"  there  will  be  no  discrimi- 
nation of  mind  ? 

In  his  formal  defence  of  his  peculiar  measures,  Mr.  Finney  un- 
dertakes to  establish  the  position,  "  that  our  present  forms  of  public 
worship,  and  everything,  so  far  as  measures  are  concerned,  have 
been  arrived  at  by  degrees,  and  by  a  succession  of  New  Measures." 
His  remarks  under  this  head  are  so  curious  that  we  are  sure  they 
would  amaze  our  readers.  We  wish  we  could  quote  them  all. 
He  descants  with  most  admirable  perspicacity  and  force  upon 
cocked-hats,  fur  caps,  bands,  silk  gowns,  stocks,  cravats,  wigs,  and 
small-clothes.  He  then  passes  on  to  the  discussion  of  Psalm  Books, 
lining  the  hymns,  choirs,  pitch-pipes,  whistles,  and  fiddles.  In  the 
course  of  his  profound  and  edifying  remarks  upon  these  topics,  he 
relates  several  stones,  of  which  the  following  may  be  taken  as  a 
specimen  :  "  I  have  been  told  that  some  years  ago,  in  New  Eng- 
land, a  certain  elderly  clergyman  was  so  opposed  to  the  new  mea- 
sure of  a  minister's  wearing  pantaloons  that  he  would  on  no 
account  allow  them  in  his  pulpit.  A  young  man  was  going  to 
preach  for  him  who  had  no  small-clothes,  and  the  old  minister 
would  not  let  him  officiate  in  pantaloons.  *  Why,'  said  he,  *  my 
people  would  think  I  had  brought  a  fop  into  the  pulpit,  to  see  a 
man  there  With  pantaloons  on,  and  it  would  produce  an  excitement 
among  them.'  And  so,  finally,  the  young  man  was  obliged  to 
borrow  a  pair  of  the  old  gentleman's  small-clothes,  and  they  were 
too  short  for  him,  and  made  a  ridiculous  figure  enough.  But  any- 
thing was  better  than  such  a  terrible  innovation  as  preaching  in 
pantaloons."  Again,  he  says  :  "  I  remember  one  minister  who, 
though  quite  a  young  man,  used  to  wear  an  enormous  white  wig. 
And  the  people  talked  as  if  there  was  a  divine  right  about  it,  and 
it  was  as  hard  to  give  it  up,  almost,  as  to  give  up  the  Bible  itself." 
We  dare  not  reproach  him  for  these  instructive  little  stories  in 
which  he  abounds,  since  he  is  a  strenuous  advocate  for  the  pro- 
priety, nay,  the  necessity,  of  tellng  such  stories  from  the  pulpit. 
"  Truths,  not  thus  illustrated,"  he  says,  "are  generally  just  as  well 
calculated  to  convert  sinnners  as  a  mathematical  demonstration." 
But  as,  besides  himself,  **  there  are  very  few  ministers  who  dare 
to  use  these  stories,"  he  calls   upon   them   to    "  do  it,   and   let 


ON   REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  115 

fools  reproach  them  as  story-telling  ministers."  Speaking,  too,  of 
such  as  contend  for  the  dignity  of  the  pulpit,  he  cries  out,"  Dignity, 
indeed  !  Just  the  language  of  the  devil.'*  We  do  not  pretend  to  be 
as  well  acquainted  as  Mr.  Finney  seems  to  be  with  the  language 
of  the  devil ;  but  knowing  who  it  is  that  has  said,  "  Whosoever 
shall  say,  Thou  fool,  shall  be  in  danger  of  hell-fire  "  we  would 
rather  abide  the  consequences  of  the  malediction  against  those  who 
censure  "  story-telling  ministers,"  than  stand  in  the  predicament 
of  him  who  uttered  it.  "  Fool"  and  "  devil"  are  in  truth  very 
hard  names,  but  we  will  not  be  angry  with  Mr.  Finney  for  employ- 
ing them  ;  we  can  bear  them  from  him,  and  it  would  be  cruel  to 
deny  him  the  use  of  his  most  effective  weapons.  We  trust  that 
we  may  be  excused,  however,  from  attempting  to  reply  to  such 
arguments.  Nor  can  it  be  reasonably  expected  that  we  should 
answer  his  stories  about  cocked-hats,  wigs,  whistles,  &;c. ;  or 
controvert  the  important  truths  they  were  intended  to  illustrate. 
Indeed,  so  far  are  we  from  wishing  to  controvert  them,  that  we 
will  furnish  him  with  an  additional  truth  of  like  kind,  and  one 
of  such  vital  moment,  that  we  can  only  wonder  how  it  escaped 
his  penetrating  survey.  It  is  unquestionably  true  that  the  minis- 
ters in  New  England,  within  the  last  half  century,  were  very 
generally  in  the  habit  of  wearing  long  queues,  and  riding  on 
switch-tailed  horses ;  and  if  he  will  apply  to  us,  we  can  furnish 
him  with  some  instructive  stories  to  illustrate  this  truth.  We  shall 
leave  to  him,  however,  the  duty  of  explaining  how  the  "  new 
measure"  of  cutting  off  the  queues,  carried  through  like  that  of 
wearing  pantaloons,  black  stocks,  and  round  hats,  in  the  face  of 
persecution  and  danger,  was  made  instrumental  in  promoting  the 
purity  and  power  of  revivals  of  religion.  We  should  be  glad  if  he 
would  inform  us  too,  whether  the  men,  who  in  the  spirit  of  mar- 
tvrs  introduced  these  innovations,  regarded  conformity  to  them  as 
the  only  credible  evidence  of  true  piety.  Did  any  of  these  wor- 
thies ever  say  of"  wearing  pantaloons  instead  of  small-clothes,"  as 
he  has  said  of  the  "  Anxious  Seat,"  that  it  occupied  the  precise 
place  that  baptism  did  with  the  apostles  ?  Or  has  the  signal 
honour  been  reserved  for  him  of  discovering  and  introducing  a 
measure  co-equal  in  importance  with  a  divine  institution  ? 

The  object  of  Mr.  Finney,  in  this  miserable  farrago,  is  to  produce 
the  impression  that  the  objections  which  have  been  brought  against 
his  measures  are  as  trivial  and  ridiculous  as  those  which  were 
urged  against  the  innovations  of  which  he  here  speaks.  Whether 
he  has  su'iceeded,  however,  in  making  any  other  impression  than 
that  of  pity  for  the  man  who  can  thus  ineptly  trifle  with  a  serious 
subject  we  leave  our  readers  to  judge. 

It  has  often  been  objected  against  the  modern  reformers,  that 
granting  the  beneficial  tendency  of  their  measures,  they  unduly 
magnify  their  importance.  This  charge  they  have  denied,  and 
have  maintained  that  they  considered  them  important,  but  yet 
unessential,  circumstances,  attending  and  favouring  the  exhibition 


116  ON  REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION. 

of  truth.  We  rejoice  that  evasion  of  this  kind  is  no  longer  possible. 
Mr.  Finney  throughout  his  Lectures  insinuates,  and  often  directly 
asserts  the  paramount  importance,  nay,  the  indispensable  necessity 
of  the  new  measures.  "  The  object  of  the  ministry,"  he  says, 
using  that  "  Saxon  colloquiaHsm"  which  his  reporter  so  much 
admires — "  is  to  get  all  the  people  to  feel  that  the  devil  has  no 
right  to  rule  this  world,  but  that  they  ought  all  to  give  themselves 
to  God,  and  vote  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  governor  of  the 
universe.  Now  what  shall  be  done  ?  What  measures  shall  we 
take  ?  Says  one,  *  Be  sure  and  have  nothing  that  is  new.* 
Strange  !  The  object  of  our  measures  is  to  gain  attention,  and  you 
must  have  something  new.  As  sure  as  the  effect  of  a  measure 
becomes  stereotyped,  it  ceases  to  gain  attention,  and  you  must  try 
something  new^  In  the  exercise  of  a  wise  economy  "  of  our  new 
things,"  he  thinks  public  attention  "  may  be  kept  awake  to  the 
great  subject  of  religion  for  a  long  series  of  years,  until  o\xx  present 
measures  will  by  and  by  have  sufficient  novelty  in  them  again  to 
attract  and  fix  the  public  attention.  And  so  we  shall  never  want 
for  something  wewj."  All  this  would  be  abundantly  unintelligible, 
if  interpreted  by  the  light  of  Mr.  F.'s  own  definitions.  On  the 
page  preceding  that  from  which  it  is  taken,  he  says, "  building 
houses  for  worship,  and  visiting  from  house  to  house,  &c.,  are  all 
*  measures^  the  object  of  which  is  to  get  the  attention  of  the  people 
to  the  gospel."  And  in  another  Lecture  from  which  we  have 
made  some  extracts,  he  dignifies  with  the  name  of  "  measures"  the 
several  articles  of  the  clergyman's  dress,  the  chorister's  pitch-pipe, 
and  various  other  like  things.  As  "building  houses  for  worship" 
is  a  "  measure,"  it  must,  according  to  his  theory,  soon  cease 
to  produce  its  effect;  and  the  gospel  cannot  gain  attention  then 
unless  we  "  try  something  new,"  such  for  instance  as  preach- 
ing in  tents  instead  of  our  present  church  edifices.  In  the  revolv- 
ing cycle  of  these  "  measures,"  too,  the  time  will  come  when  the 
cocked  hat,  small  clothes,  and  wig,  must  be  restored  to  their  former 
honours,  or  the  truth  cannot  make  any  impression  upon  the  minds 
of  men.  Will  Mr.  Finney  calculate  the  length  of  this  cycle,  that 
the  public  may  know  when  they  will  be  favoured  with  the  oppor- 
tunity for  observing  the  impulse  which  will  be  given  to  the  spread 
of  the  truth  by  the  return  of  these  ancient  observances  ?  Admit- 
ting the  truth  of  Mr.  Finney's  favourite  maxim  that  "  obligation 
and  ability  are  commensurate,"  he  cannot  perhaps  be  considered 
bound  to  write  with  anything  like  logical  precision  or  consistency. 
But  we  have  a  right  to  expect  honesty.  We  are  entitled  to  de- 
mand that  he  shall  not  use  terms  in  one  sense,  when  seeking  to 
relieve  his  system  from  odium,  and  then  artfully  change  the  mean- 
ing to  subserve  his  purpose.  This  he  has  evidently  done  in  the 
passage  above  quoted.  Let  us  assign,  however,  to  the  term 
**  measures,"  in  this  extract,  the  signification  which  it  was  intended 
here  to  bear,  and  yet  how  revolting  is  the  doctrine  taught !  Ac- 
<;ording  to  this  theory,  the  gospel,  which  its  divine  author  left 


ON   REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION.  117 

complete  in  all  its  parts  and  proportions,  and  most  admirably 
adapted  to  secure  its  destined  ends,  must  utterly  fail  of  its  effect 
unless  there  be  added  to  it  a  set  of  machinery  of  man's  invention. 
A  great,  if  not  the  chief  part  of  ministerial  wisdom  is  made  to  con- 
sist "  in  devising  and  carrying  forward  measures "  for  exciting 
public  attention.  The  very  perfection  of  Christian  wisdom,  the 
height  of  religious  prosperity,  are  to  be  sought  in  that  state  of 
things  in  which  "  we  shall  never  want  for  something  that  is  new." 
How  is  the  temple  of  God  dishonoured  by  this  alleged  necessity 
for  a  continual  shifting  of  its  services,  like  the  scenes  of  some 
raree-show,  to  attract  the  vulgar  gaze  !  How  is  the  Gospel  de- 
graded by  being  thus  made  dependent  for  its  effect  upon  a  kind  of 
jugglery  'which  shall  be  studiously  adapted  to  surprise  and  startle 
beholders,  and  thus  "  attract  their  attention  !"  It  is  the  very 
nature  of  truth  to  be  severely  simple  ;  and  in  this  simplicity  she 
delights  to  go  forth  to  win  her  victories.  She  leaves  to  error  the 
use  of  stratagem  and  guile. 

The  quotation  we  have  made  is  not  a  solitary  passage  in  which 
the  writer,  in  an  unguarded  moment,  has  claimed  for  his  new 
measures  a  degree  of  importance,  which,  in  his  more  sober  moods, 
he  would  rather  disavow.  Deliberately  and  often  does  he  assert 
the  unqualified  necessity  of  these  new  measures,  to  the  success  of 
the  Gospel.  "  Without  new  measures,"  he  says,  "  it  is  impossible 
that  the  church  should  succeed  in  gaining  the  attention  of  the 
world  to  the  subject  of  religion."  And  again, "  But  new  measures, 
we  must  have."  It  will  be  seen  in  the  sequel,  that  this  is  only  one 
illustration  of  Mr.  Finney's  disposition  to  claim  infallibility  and 
supreme  importance  for  all  his  own  opinions,  even  when  the 
smallest  matters  are  in  question.  His  argument,  in  the  paragraph 
from  which  the  sentences  last  quoted  are  taken,  may  certainly 
claim  the  merit  of  originality.  "  There  are  so  many  exciting  sub- 
jects constantly  brought  before  the  public  mind,  such  a  running  to 
and  fro,  so  many  that  cry  *  Lo  here,'  and  '  Lo  there,'  that  the 
church  cannot  maintain  her  ground,  cannot  command  attention, 
without  very  exciting  preaching,  and  sufficient  novelty  in  measures 
to  get  the  public  ear."  He  then  proceeds  to  explain  what  these 
"  exciting  subjects"  are,  which  call  upon  the  church  to  institute 
specific  measures  for  producing  a  counteracting  excitement. 
They  are  such  as  "  the  measures  of  politicians,  of  infidels  and 
heretics,  the  scramblinf]r  after  wealth,  the  increase  of  luxury,"  &c. 
It  should  seem,  then,  that  the  church  must  vary  the  method  of 
celebrating  divine  worship,  and  modify  all  the  arrangements  for 
presenting  religious  truth  to  the  minds  of  men,  according  to  the 
dainties  of  their  tables  and  the  elegance  of  their  furniture  and 
equipage,  the  degree  of  commercial  enterprise  among  them,  or  the 
extent  of  infidel  machinations,  the  number  of  railroads  and  canals 
in  progress,  and  of  Presidential  candidates  in  the  field.  The  mea- 
sures we  must  use  are  some  determinate  function  of  all  these  vari- 
able quantities ;  and  its  form  should  be,  in  each  case,  most  care- 


m 


ON   REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION. 


fully  calculated.  Every  change  in  the  state  of  speculation,  trade, 
or  politics,  must  call  for  such  a  change  of  measures  as  will  be  "cal- 
culated to  get  the  attention  of  men  to  the  gospel  of  Christ,"  under 
these  new  circumstances.  Religion  must  descend  from  her  vantage 
ground,  and  on  the  level  with  all  this  world's  concerns  and  by 
kindred  arts,  must  she  bustle,  contrive,  and  intrigue  "  to  get  the 
public  ear."  To  make  use  of  one  of  Mr.  Finney's  own  illustrations, 
because  "  the  politicians  get  up  meetings,  circulate  handbills  and 
pamphlets,  blaze  away  in  the  newspapers,  send  their  ships  about  the 
streets  on  wheels  with  flags  and  sailors,  send  coaches  all  over  town 
with  handbills  to  bring  people  up  to  the  polls,  all  to  gain  attention  to 
their  cause  and  elect  their  candidate,"  the  church  is  bound  to  imitate 
their  wisdom,  and  institute  a  similar  system  of  mancEuvres.  Where 
then  is  the  contrast  which  Paul  so  often  draws  between  the  wea- 
pons of  our  warfare,  and  those  with  which  the  world  contends  ? 
How  widely  do  these  ad  captandum  measures  differ  from  the  direct, 
single-hearted  course  of  the  apostles  !  They  evidently  relied  upon 
the  truth,  as  the  only  instrument  they  could  lawfully  employ  in  the 
accomplishment  of  their  errand.  Their  miracles  were  not  intended, 
like  the  glaring  show-bill  of  some  exhibition,  to  attract  the  atten- 
tion of  the  public ;  their  object  was  to  convince,  not  to  amaze  the 
people.  They  felt  that  they  were  the  heralds  of  God,  commis- 
sioned to  bear  a  weighty  message  to  the  children  of  men ;  and 
while  to  their  miracles  they  appealed  for  the  proof  of  their  com- 
mission, upon  the  intrinsic  overwhelming  importance  of  their  mes- 
sage they  founded  their  claim  to  the  public  attention.  If  we  may 
credit  their  own  statements,  they  "  renounced  the  hidden  things  of 
dishonesty,  not  walking  in  craftiness,  nor  handling  the  word  of  God 
deceitfully,  but  hi/  manifestation  of  the  truth,  commending  them- 
selves to  every  man's  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God."  They  seem 
to  have  had  no  idea  that  they  must  set  in  operation  some  prelimi- 
nary mechanism  to  awaken  the  attention  of  conscience  to  the  truth. 
If  this  complicated  and  ever-shifting  system  of  "  exciting  mea- 
sures" is  necessary  to  the  success  of  the  Gospel,  why  do  we  find 
no  trace  of  it  in  their  practice,  and  not  a  syllable  of  it  in  their  writ- 
ings ?  If,  as  Mr.  F.  says,  "  new  measures  are  necessary  from  time 
to  time  to  awaken  attention,  and  bring  the  Gospel  to  bear  upon 
the  public  mind,"  why  has  it  been  left  for  him  to  reveal  to  us  these 
necessary  means  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  ? 

Mr.  Finney  refers  distinctly  to  the  character  of  the  present  age 
as  furnishing  a  special  argument  for  the  use  of  new  measures  in 
religion,  and  as  determining  the  kind  of  measures  to  be  employed. 
The  substance  of  his  argument  is,  that  this  is  an  age  of  great  excite- 
ment, and  therefore  the  same  kind  of  preaching  and  of  measures, 
which  did  very  well  in  the  days  of  our  fathers,  will  not  answer 
now ;  we  must  have  something  more  exciting,  or  religion  cannot 
obtain  a  hearing.  From  the  same  premises,  we  should  arrive  at  a 
very  different  conclusion.  This  is,  indeed,  an  age  of  extraordinary 
excitement.     The  great  improvements  in  the  mechanic  arts,  and 


ON  REVIVALS   OF  RELIGION.  119 

the  wide  diffusion  of  knowledge,  have  given  a  strong  impulse  to  the 
popular  mind ;  and  everywhere  the  social  mass  is  seen  to  be  in 
such  a  state  of  agitation,  that  the  lightest  breath  may  make  it  heave 
and  foam.  This  being  the  case,  should  religion  fall  in  with  this 
excitement,  and  institute  measures  for.  fostering  it  up  to  a  certain 
point,  that  she  may  gain  a  favourable  moment  for  presenting  her 
claims  ?  We  had  thought  that  one  great  object  of  religion  was  to 
allay  this  undue  excitement  of  the  human  mind  ;  to  check  its  fever- 
ish outgoings  towards  earthly  objects,  and  to  teach  it  without 
hurry  or  distraction,  in  self-collectedness,  to  put  forth  its  energies 
in  a  proper  direction,  and  to  their  best  advantage.  This  self- 
possession  being  included  in  the  final  result  at  which  religion  aims, 
can  it  be  wise  to  commence  the  attempt  to  produce  it,  by  exaspe- 
rating the  contrary  state  of  mind  ?  Paul  was  once  placed  among 
a  people  who  were  proverbial  for  their  excitability.  Their  feelings 
would  kindle  and  flame  with  the  lightest  spark,  and,  like  all  persons 
of  this  mercurial  temperament,  they  dehghted  in  excitement,  and 
were  continually  seeking  its  procuring  causes.  "  For  all  the  Athe- 
nians and  strangers  which  were  there,  spent  their  time  in  nothing 
else,  but  either  to  tell  or  to  hear  some  new  thing."  Here,  then, 
according  to  Mr.  Finney's  theory,  was  the  very  people  upon  whom 
it  would  be  necessary  to  play  off"  some  preparatory  measures  to 
excite  them,  and  gain  their  attention  to  the  Word.  But  the  apostle 
appears  to  have  felt  that  nothing  was  necessary  beyond  the  simple 
declaration  of  the  Word.  He  looked  upon  the  truth,  declared  by 
his  lips,  and  prospered  in  its  course  by  the  energy  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  amply  sufficient  to  secure  the  needful  attention,  and 
accomplish  the  purpose  whereunto  it  was  sent.  Nay,  so  desirous 
was  he  to  prevent  the  surprise  of  novelty,  that  he  represents  him- 
self as  aiming,  by  the  truth  which  he  exhibits,  merely  to  supply  a 
chasm  in  their  knowledge  which  they  had  themselves  discovered. 
He  presents  Jehovah  to  them  as  the  God  of  an  altar  already  exist- 
ing, and  declared  to  them  Him,  whom  they  had  ignoranlly  wor- 
shipped. Nor  did  this  apostle  ever  vary  his  course  to  suit  the 
latitude  of  the  place  he  was  in,  or  the  temperament  of  the  people 
around  him.  Among  the  pains-taking  and  thrifty  Jews  ;  the  learn- 
ed and  witty  Athenians;  the  dissolute  Corinthians;  the  more 
phlegmatic  and  martial  Romans,  he  employed  but  one  measure,  the 
declaration  of  the  truth.  Will  it  be  said  that,  in  his  day,  the  Gos- 
pel was  so  novel,  its  truths  so  surprising,  that  the  necessity  for 
other  measures  was  superseded,  but  that  now,  when  men  have 
become  familiar  with  the  revelations  of  the  Gospel,  something  else 
than  the  "  thrice-told  tale"  must  be  employed  to  awaken  public 
attention  ?  And  is  it  conceivable,  then,  that  the  Great  Head  of  the 
Church,  foreseeing  that  the  time  would  come  when  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel  would  lose  its  effect,  and  other  means  become  neces- 
sary for  its  propagation,  should  leave  human  reason  to  grope  in 
the  dark  for  these  additional  measures?  Such  imperfection  does, 
indeed,  often  mark  the  ways  and  proceedings  of  man,  but  may  not 


130  ON  REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION. 

be  attributed  unto  Him,  "  whose  thoughts  are  not  as  our  thoughts, 
nor  his  ways  as  our  ways." 

We  have  assumed,  thus  far,  that  the  new  measures  cannot  be 
defended  under  the  pretext  that  they  are  only  a  particular  mode  of 
preaching  the  Gospel,  or  oC  exhibiting  the  truth,  and  are  therefore 
virtually  comprised  in  the  appointed  means  for  the  promotion  of 
religion.  The  measures  for  which  Mr.  Finney  pleads  are  something 
distinct  from  the  truth,  aside  from  it,  and  intended  to  exert  a  sepa- 
rate influence.  He  plainly  presents  them  as  the  precursors  of  the 
Gospel,  to  prepare  the  way  for  its  coming.  It  is  surely  incumbent 
on  him,  therefore,  to  explain  why  the  Scriptures  make  no  allusion 
to  these  indispensable  appendages,  or  rather  prefixes,  of  the 
Gospel. 

Pressed  with  this  difficulty,  and  unable  to  work  a  miracle  in 
confirmation  of  his  right  to  supply  the  deficiencies  of  the  revela- 
tion already  made,  will  he  yield  the  position  that  these  new  mea- 
sures are  necessary,  and  content  himself  with  maintaining,  that  as 
they  tend  to  favour  the  impression  of  the  truth,  and  it  is  our  duty 
to  preach  the  truth  in  its  most  efficient  form,  it  is  both  expedient 
and  right  to  make  use  of  them  ?  Upon  this  ground  some  of  Mr. 
Finney's  follow  labourers  have  rested  their  cause,  and  have  con- 
structed for  it  a  much  better  defence  than  he  has  made.  The 
principle  is  here  assumed,  that  it  is  the  right  and  the  duty  of  every 
man  to  make  use  of  any  measures  for  promoting  religion  that  seem 
to  him  well  adapted  to  co-operate  with  the  truth  and  aid  in  its 
work ;  and  this  principle  is,  within  certain  limits,  both  just  and 
safe,  but  when  pressed  beyond  them  it  is  false  and  dangerous.  If 
there  be  no  restraint  upon  the  application  of  this  principle,  then 
are  the  means  for  the  difliusion  of  Christianity  left,  as  before,  at  the 
mercy  of  human  discretion.  Each  minister  should,  in  this  case,  be 
keen  as  a  Metternich  in  foreseeing  the  final  effect  of  the  machi- 
nery he  puts  in  operation ;  and  the  most  eagle-eyed  would  often 
find  themselves  mistaken.  Hence  experiment  after  experiment 
must  be  made  to  try  the  efficacy  of  different  measures  ;  and  the 
house  of  God  becomes  transformed  into  a  kind  of  religious  labora- 
tory. Upon  this  same  principle  the  Roman  Catholic  church  has 
introduced  the  worship  of  images  and  pictures,  and  overlaid  the 
simplicity  of  the  Gospel  with  the  tinsel  and  glare  of  her  pompous 
ritual.  She  has  cast  upon  religion  such  a  profusion  of  ornaments 
wherewith  to  deck  herself,  that  she  has  expired  beneath  the  bur- 
den. The  measures  of  the  Catholic  church,  though  adopted  with 
the  honest  design  of  favouring  the  operation  of  the  truth,  are  rea- 
dily condemned  by  all  Protestants.  We  might  imagine,  too,  many 
other  measures  which  would  temporarily  assist  the  impression  of 
the  truth,  and  which  would  yet  meet  with  universal  condemnation. 
It  was  Domitian,  we  believe,  who  invited  some  of  his  senators,  on 
a  certain  occasion,  to  sup  with  him,  and  when  they  arrived  at  his 
palace,  they  were  ushered  into  a  room  hung  with  black,  and  against 
the  walls  of  which  were  placed  coffins,  each  one,  by  the  dim,  blue 


ON   REVIVALS    OF   RELIGION.  121 

light  of  a  sulphur  lamp  placed  within  it,  showing  the  name  of  one 
of  the  horror-stricken  guests.  At  a  signal  from  the  emperor,  execu- 
tioners rushed  into  the  room,  each  with  a  drawn  sword  in  his  hand. 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  a  homily  on  death,  delivered  just  then, 
would  have  produced  a  wonderful  effect  upon  the  audience.  But 
would  any  one  recommend  such  measures  for  giving  effect  to  the 
truth  of  man's  mortality  ?  Or  would  any  one,  save  the  preacher 
and  the  trumpeter  who  are  said  to  have  actually  tried  the  trick, 
approve  of  stationing  a  man  in  the  belfry  of  the  church  to  give 
emphasis,  by  a  blast  from  his  horn,  to  the  preacher's  account  of 
the  blowing  of  the  archangel's  trump?  Phosphoric  paintings 
might  be  drawn  upon  the  walls  of  the  church,  which  being  ren- 
dered suddenly  visible  by  the  extinguishment  of  the  lights,  at  the 
proper  point  in  the  preacher's  discourse,  would  most  powerfully 
aid  the  impression  of  the  truth  he  was  delivering.  A  thousand 
devices  equally  effective,  and  equally  objectionable,  might  be 
invented  by  the  exercise  of  a  little  ingenuity.  Where  then  shall 
we  draw  the  line  between  what  is  right  and  what  is  wrong  ?  If 
compelled  to  run  this  boundary  line,  we  should  make  it  divide 
between  those  measures  which  might  be  considered  vehicles 
of  the  truth,  or  intended  simply  to  provide  for  the  exhibition 
of  the  truth,  and  those  which  are  designed  of  themselves  to 
produce  an  effect.  There  are  various  methods  in  which  the 
truth  may  be  presented,  such  as  from  the  pulpit,  in  Bible 
classes,  or  Sunday-schools,  and  in  private  conversation.  Of 
all  such  measures,  if  measures  they  must  be  called,  those  are  best 
which  are  best  adapted  to  make  the  truth  effective.  Means  must 
also  be  provided  for  the  proper  exhibition  of  truth,  such  as  build- 
ing convenient  houses  for  public  worship,  collecting  children  in 
Sunday-schools,  visiting  from  house  to  house,  forming  Bible  and 
other  benevolent  societies.  To  this  class  may  be  referred  also  pro- 
tracted meetings  and  inquiry  meetings.  The  design  of  these 
meetings  is  simply  to  collect  the  people  together  that  they  may 
hear  such  truths  as  are  deemed  suitable  to  their  state  of  mind.  It 
was  never  intended  that  the  mere  institution  of  such  a  meeting,  or 
the  act  of  going  to  attend  upon  it,  should  produce  any  religious 
effect.  Such  arrangements  as  these  may  undoubtedly  be  made  if 
they  are  fitted  to  favour  the  operation  of 'the  truth.  And  this  limi- 
tation will  be  fojnd  to  include  the  condition  that  the  measures 
themselves,  the  bare  mechanism  of  the  arrangements  for  the  pre- 
sentation of  the  truth,  instead  of  being  constructed  with  the  design 
and  the  tendency  to  surprise  and  captivate  the  attention,  should  be 
so  ordered  as  to  attract  no  notice.  The  perfection  of  pulpit  elo- 
quence is  when  the  manner  of  the  preacher  attracts  no  attention, 
and  the  truth  is  left  to  work  its  unimpeded  effect  upon  the  hearer ; 
and  so  those  are  the  best  measures  which  themselves  pass  unre- 
garded, and  suffer  the  mind  to  be  entirely  occupied  with  the  truth. 
The  measures  which  are  peculiar  to  Mr.  Finney  and  his  followers 
are  of  a  very  different  class.     The  anxious  seat,  for  instance,  is 


122  ON   REVIVALS   OF   RELIGION.  V 

intended  to  produce  an  effect  of  its  own.  Its  object  is  not  simply 
to  collect  in  one  place  those  who  are  in  a  particular  state  of  mind, 
that  they  may  be  suitably  instructed  and  advised.  No,  there  is 
supposed  to  be  some  wonder-working  power  in  the  person'^  rising 
before  the  congregation  and  taking  the  assigned  place.  This  mea- 
sure then,  and  all  that  resemble  it  in  its  tendency  to  occupy  and 
excite  the  mind,  we  should  condemn  on  scriptural  grounds  as  inex- 
pedient and  unauthorized. 

The  distinction  we  have  here  made  we  think  is  just  and  impor- 
tant ;  and  we  could  urge  many  reasons  why  it  should  be  taken  as 
the  dividing  line  between  right  and  wrong  measures  for  promoting 
religion.  But  this  position  might  be  contested  by  some,  and  we 
are  anxious  here  to  reason  from  premises  universally  conceded. 
There  are  many  cases  where  right  and  wrong  run  into  each  other, 
and  the  bounding  line  between  them,  like  that  between  neighbour- 
ing states,  is  involved  in  dispute  and  doubt.  We  will  grant  there- 
fore, to  save  all  cavil,  the  universal  truth  of  the  principle  that  it  is 
right  to  make  use  of  any  measures  in  our  efforts  to  promote  religion 
that  are  adapted  to  aid  the  truth  in  its  operation  upon  the  minds  of 
men.  Here  then  we  are  called  upon  to  examine  the  tendency  of 
the  particular  measures  proposed  and  insisted  upon  by  Mr.  Finney ; 
and  when  he  shall  have  worn  out  these,  and,  in  accordance  with 
his  Athenian  notion  that  we  must  continually  find  something  new, 
introduced  others,  we  shall  be  under  the  necessity  of  testing  them 
in  like  manner. 

For  reasons  already  given  we  shall  throw  out  of  consideration 
inquiry  meetings  and  protracted  meetings.  We  shall  first  consider 
what  Mr.  F.  calls  the  anxious  seat.  His  formal  definition  of  this 
measure  is,  "  the  appointment  of  some  particular  seat  in  the  place 
of  meeting,  where  the  anxious  may  come  and  be  addressed  parti- 
cularly, and  be  made  subjects  of  prayer  and  sometimes  conversed 
with  individually."  Let  this  definition  be  well  marked.  It  points 
out  with  sufficient  distinctness  the  nature  and  design  of  this  mea- 
sure. What  then  will  be  the  surprise  of  the  reader  to  learn,  that 
on  the  same  page  he  implicitly  admits  that  the  real  design  is  totally 
different  from  the  avowed  one  !  In  defending  this  measure  from 
objection,  he  says,  *'  the  design  of  the  anxious  seat  is  undoubtedly 
philosophical  and  according  to  the  laws  of  mind  : — it  has  two  bear- 
ings." These  two  bearings  are,  that  "  it  gets  the  individual  (who 
is  seriously  troubled  in  mind),  willing  to  have  the  fact  known  to 
others  ;"  and  secondly,"  it  uncovers  the  delusion  of  the  human  heart 
and  prevents  a  great  many  spurious  conversions,  by  showing  those 
who  might  otherwise  imagine  themselves  willing  to  do  anything 
for  Christ  that  in  fact  they  are  willing  to  do  nothing."  In  defend- 
ing this  measure,  who  would  not  have  supposed  that  his  arguments 
would  have  been  drawn  from  the  importance  of  having  those  who 
were  troubled  in  mind  collected  together  that  they  might  "  be  ad- 
dressed particularly,"  &c.  ?  But  there  is  not  one  word  of  his  defence 
that  has  the  remotest  connexion  with  the  avowed  object  of  this  mea- 


ON   REVIVALS    OP   RELIGION.  123 

sure.  He  was  evidently  thrown  off  his  guard  ;  and  the  plainness 
with  which  he  thus  incautiously  reveals  the  true  in  distinction  from 
the  professed  design  is  only  a  new  instance  to  illustrate  the  diffi- 
culty of  maintaining  a  consistent  system  of  deception.  We  have 
understood  from  the  beginning  the  guileful  character  of  this  measure, 
and  it  has  constituted  in  our  minds  a  strong  objection  against  it ; 
but  we  had  not  expected  to  find  so  distinct  an  acknowledgment  of 
it  in  Mr.  Finney's  defence.  Can  any  measures,  thus  marked  by 
insidiousness,  be  lawfully  employed  in  the  promotion  of  religion  ? 
How  careful  is  the  Apostle  Paul  to  inform  us  that  he  did  "  not 
walk  in  craftiness;''^  and  when  some  of  his  enemies  at  Corinth 
charged  him  with  having  "  caught  them  with  guile"  how  prompt- 
ly did  he  repel  the  odious  accusation !  We  are  told  too  that  in 
the  Saviour's  lips,  "  there  was  found  no  guile  ;"  but  that  his  ene- 
mies used  crafty  measures  to  ensnare  him.  Christian  wisdom  be- 
comes worldly  cunning  the  moment  that  it  ceases  to  be  united  with 
the  artlessness  and  simplicity  of  the  dove.  But  we  need  not 
multiply  arguments  to  prove  that  deception  can  never  be  lawfully 
employed  in  the  support  and  furtherance  of  the  truth.  The  only 
difficulty  heretofore  has  been  to  substantiate  the  charge  of  guile 
against  the  new  measures,  and  Mr.  Finney  has  saved  us  all  further 
trouble  on  this  score. 

Deception  may  seem,  for  a  time,  to  aid  the  progress  of  truth,  but 
its  ultimate  effects  must  always  be  injurious.  In  the  case  now  un- 
der examination,  it  is  easy  to  foresee  the  evil.  Many  will  doubt- 
less go  to  the  anxious  seat,  and  finding  that  no  counsels  or  prayers 
are  offered  on  their  behalf,  which  might  not  have  been  delivered 
with  as  much  propriety  and  effect  while  they  occupied  their 
former  seats,  will  perceive  that  the  apparent  and  professed  de- 
sign of  this  measure  was  intended  merely  as  a  lure  to  draw  them 
within  the  sphere  of  its  real  operation.  They  will  feel  that  they 
have  been  deceived,  and  there  is  nothing  which  the  mind  more  in- 
stinctively and  quickly  resents  than  the  least  approach  to  fraud  or 
imposition  upon  itself — nothing  which  more  surely  awakens  its  un- 
friendly and  hostile  feelings.  A  still  larger  class  will  see  at  once 
the  deception  of  this  measure,  and  will  turn  away  in  disgust  from 
a  cause  which  calls  in  the  aid  of  such  fantastic  trickery — a  disgust 
which  we  should  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  reasonable,  if  the  con- 
duct which  excites  it  were  lawful  and  right.  The  best  cause 
imaginable,  on  trial  before  a  jury,  would  be  prejudiced  and  probably 
lost,  by  any  appearance  of  fraud  in  the  matter  or  management  of 
it.  What  impression  then  must  be  made  respecting  religion,  when 
her  friends  employ  such  measures,  and  represent  them  as  essential 
to  the  success  of  the  Gospel !  What  multitudes  will  conclude,  and 
conclude  justly,  if  the  sayings  and  doings  of  these  reformers  are 
true  and  right,  that  the  cause  itself  thus  supported,  must  be  a  bad 
one  !  The  character  of  religion  is  known  to  the  world  chiefly 
from  the  conduct  of  its  professed  friends  ;  and  they  cannot  be  too 
careful,  therefore,  to  pursue  such  an  open  and  honest  course,  as 


124  ON  REVIVALS   OF  RELIGION. 

m 

will  plainly  show,  that,  in  the  strong  consciousness  of  the  merits  of 
their  cause,  they  reject  with  disdain  the  tortuous  policy  and  in- 
triguing arts  of  worldly  men. 

The  substance  of  Mr.  Finney's  first  argument  in  defence  of  the 
anxious  seat  is  comprised  in  the  following  extract.     "  When  a 
person  is  seriously  troubled  in  mind,   everybody  knows  that  there 
is  a  powerful  tendency  to  try  to  keep  it  private  that  he  is  so,  and 
it  is  a  great  thing  to  get  the  individual  willing  to  have  the  fact 
known  to  others.     And  as  soon  as  you  can  get  him  willing  to  make 
known  his  feelings  you  have  accomplished  a  great  deal."     The 
anxious  seat  he  supposes  will  produce  this  willingness,  will  "  get 
him  to  break  away  from  the  chains  of  pride,"  and  thus  **  gain  an 
important  point  towards  his  conversion."     It  is  true  that  there  is 
often  found  the  tendency,  here  spoken  of,  to  conceal  the  state  of 
the  feelings  from  public  observation.     But  this  is  not  always  the 
effect  of  pride.     However  strange  and  inconceivable  it  may  be  to 
Mr.  Finney,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a 
diffidence,  which  has   its  origin  in  modesty   rather   than  pride. 
There  are  those,  and  they  form  perhaps  a  much  larger  class  than 
he  supposes,  whose  minds  shrink  from  everything  like  a  parade, 
or  public  display  of  feeling.     Every  refined  mind  possesses  more 
or  less  of  this  retiring  delicacy.     Its   tenderest,   most  cherished 
feelings  are  those  which  are  least  exposed  save  to  the  objects  of 
them  ;  it  feels  indeed,  that  its  affections  would  be  profaned  by  being 
laid  open  to  the  stare  of  vulgar  curiosity.     It  is  easy  to  see  how 
such  a  mind  will  be  affected  by  the  anxious  seat.     In  proportion 
ordinarily  to  the  intenseness  of  the  feelings  awakened  within  a  man  of 
this  mood,  will  be  his  aversion  to  make  the  public  exhibition  of  them, 
which  is  demanded.     He  knows  that  there  is,  in  every  community,  a 
circle  of  religious  gossips,  who  are  always  found  among  the  earliest 
and  warmest  patrons  of  the  anxious  seat,  and  who  attend  continu- 
ally upon  it,  to  satisfy  their  prurient  curiosity,  and  gather  materials 
for  conversation  from  the  disclosures  there  made  of  the  feelings  of 
their  neighbours.    And  he  cannot  bear  the  thought  that  his  most  pri- 
vate and  sacred  emotions  should  be  thus  idly  bruited  about.     After 
a  severe  struggle  of  mind,  he  will  decide  not  to  go  to  the  anxious 
seat,  and,  as  he  has  been  taught  to  consider  this  step  necessary  to 
his  conversion,  there  is  much  reason  to  fear  that  his  decision  not  to 
take  it  will  put  an  end  to  his  seriousness.     The  spark,  which,  pro- 
perly fostered,  might  have  been  kindled  into  a  bright  and  ever-dur- 
ing  flame,  is  thus  quenched  by  a  kind  of  rude  and  harsh  dealing  for 
which  the  word  of  God  affords  no  warrant.     There  are  others,  in 
whom  the  unwillingness  to  make  known  their  religious  concern 
proceeds  from  the  dread  of  ridicule.     This  dread  has  a  place  in 
most  minds,  and  with  some  men  it  constitutes  one  of  the  strongest 
feelings  oi  their  nature.     There  are  many  young  men  who  could 
better  brave  almost  any  danger  than  endure  the  laugh  or  face  the 
sneer  of  their  thoughtless  companions.     The  religious  anxiety  of 
such  must  become  deep  and  strong,  before  it  will  drive  them  to 


ON    REVIVALS   OF  RELIGION.  125 

break  through  the  restraints  which  this  fear  imposes  upon  them. 
Can  it  be  deemed  wise  or  safe  then  to  expose  them  unnecessarily  to 
so  severe  a  trial  as  the  anxious  seat  ?  This  trial  may  in  some  cases 
effect,  so  far  as  this  is  cfmcerned,  the  desired  result,  but  there  is  a 
dreadful  risk  incurred  of  repelling  some,  upon  whom  the  truth  had 
taken  hold,  to  their  former  state  of  thoughtless  unconcern.  And 
what  is  the  counterbalancing  advantage  to  warrant  this  risk  ? 
Why,  the  anxious  seat,  argues  Mr.  Finney,  "gets  the  individual, 
who  is  seriously  troubled  in  mind,  willing  to  have  the  fact  known 
to  others  ;  and  as  soon  as  you  can  get  him  willing  to  make  known 
his  feelings,  you  have  accomplished  a  great  deal."  The  true  state 
of  the  question  is  here  very  artfully  concealed  from  view.  The 
real  operation  of  the  anxious  seat  is  not  to  make  the  individual 
upon  whom  it  takes  effect,  willing  to  have  his  feelings  known  to 
"  others ;"  it  is  to  make  him  willing  to  display  them  before  the 
whole  congregation.  And  this  is  so  far  from  being  "  an  important 
point  gained  towards  his  conversion,"  that  it  should  be  deprecated 
as  fraught  with  almost  certain  evil.  It  is  important  that  some  one 
or  more  should  be. made  acquainted  with  his  state  of  mind,  that  he 
may  receive  the  instructions  adapted  to  his  case ;  but  it  is  highly 
undesirable  that  the  whole  community  should  know  it,  lest  the 
thought  that  he  is  the  object  of  general  observation  and  remark 
should  turn  away  his  mind  from  the  contemplation  of  the  truth,  and 
call  up  an  antagonist  influence,  which  shall  prevail  over  that  which 
had  begun  to  work  within  him.  The  risk,  then,  which  is  involved 
in  the  use  of  this  measure,  is  incurred  for  the  attainment  of  an  end, 
which  is  of  itself  a  positive  and  serious  disadvantage. 

In  this  connexion,  too,  we  would  remark,  that  the  tendency  of 
the  anxious  seat,  and  of  the  whole  system  of  public  pledging,  vot- 
ing, &c.,  or,  as  Mr.  Finney  calls  it  in  his  Saxon  English,  "  of  speak- 
ing right  out  in  the  meeting,"  is  to  obsti-uct  the  operation  of  the  truth. 
They  distract  the  mind  and  divert  it  from  the  truth,  by  producing 
a  distinct  and  separate  excitement.  Suppose  an  individual,  listen- 
ing to  the  message  of  God,  feels  the  truth  manifested  to  his  con- 
science. As  the  preacher  proceeds,  the  truth  takes  deeper  hold 
upon  him,  I  he  penitential  tear  starts  from  his  eye,  and  he  resolves 
that  he  will  begin  to  seek  the  Lord.  When  the  sermon  is  closed, 
his  heart  still  meditates  upon  the  truth  he  has  heard,  and  his  feel- 
ing of  anxious  concern  becomes  each  moment  more  intense.  But 
now  comes  the  call  to  the  anxious  seat.  He  hears  himself  exhorted  in 
the  most  impassioned  manner,  to  exchange  the  seat  he  now  occupies 
for  another  designated  one ;  and  the  vehemence  with  which  this 
measure  is  urged  upon  him,  and  the  motives  and  illustrations  em- 
ployed to  enforce  it,  seem  to  imply  that  the  salvation  of  his  soul 
depends  upon  his  taking  this  step.  Here  is  a  new  subject  present- 
ed to  his  mind,  and  one  of  a  very  agitating  nature.  The  divine  truth, 
which  was  but  now  occupying  his  mind,  is  forced  away,  while  he 
revolves  the  questions,  Shall  I  go  or  not  ?  Who  else  will  go  ? 
What  will  they  say  of  me  ?     The  excitement  thus  produced,  obliter 


188  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  \ 

rates  the  impressions  vv^hich  the  truth  had  made,  and,  but  for  the 
consideration  we  are  now  about  to  present,  it  would  then  be  a 
matter  of  small  moment  whether  he  went  to  the  anxious  seat 
or  not. 

The  consideration  just  alluded  to,  is  the  tendency  of  the  anxious 
seat  to  form  and  cherish  delusive  hopes.  Mr.  'Finney  has,  in- 
deed, assigned  as  his  second  argument,  and  the  only  additional  one 
to  that  already  examined,  in  favour  of  this  measure,  that  its 
bearing  is  "  to  detect  deception  and  delusion,  and  thus  prevent 
false  hopes."  This  argument  would  have  astonished  us  beyond 
measure,  had  we  not  ceased  to  be  startled  by  anything  which 
Mr.  Finney  can  say  or  do.  He  has  worn  out  all  our  suscepti- 
bilities of  this  kind,  and  no  measures  from  him,  in  argument  or 
action,  however  new,  could  now  surprise  us.  This  case  is  but  one 
out  of  several  similar  ones,  in  which  Mr.  F.  resorts  to  the  forlorn 
hope  of  reversing  what  he  knows  and  feels  to  be  the  most  formi- 
dable objections  against  him,  and  changing  them  into  argu- 
ments in  his  favour.  As  might  have  been  anticipated  in  every  at- 
tempt of  this  kind,  he  has  utterly  failed.  He.  supposes  that  the 
anxious  seat  operates  as  a  test  of  character.  "  Preach,"  he  says 
"  to  him  (the  awakened  sinner)  and  at  the  moment  he  thinks  he  is 

willing  to  do  anything, but  bring  him  to  the  test,  call  on  him  to 

do  one  thing,  to  take  one  step,  that  shall  identify  him  with  the  peo- 
ple of  God,  or  cross  his  pride — his  pride  comes  up,  and  he  refuses  ; 
his  delusion  is  brought  out,  and  he  finds  himself  a  lost  sinner  still ; 
whereas,  if  you  had  not  done  it  he  might  have  gone  away  flatter- 
ing himself  that  he  was  a  Christian."  This  argument  involves  the 
capital  error  that  no  sinner  who  is  truly  awakened  can  refrain  from 
obeying  the  call  to  the  anxious  seat.  It  assumes  that  to  go  to 
the  anxious  seat  is  "  to  do  something  for  Christ,"  and  that  it  is  im- 
possible for  him  who  refuses  to  go,  to  be  a  Christian.  It  supposes 
that  these  things  are  true,  and  that  every  awakened  sinner  is  igno- 
rant or  undiscerning  enough  to  believe  them  true.  Some  test  of 
this  kind,  he  says,  the  church  has  always  found  it  necessary  to 
have.  "  In  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  baptism  answered  this  pur- 
pose. It  held  the  precise  place  that  the  anxious  seat  does  now,  as 
a  public  manifestation  of  their  (the  people's)  determination  to  be 
Christians."  So  it  appears  that  baptism,  like  all  other  measures, 
wears  itself  out,  and  must  be  replaced  by  something  new.  Will 
Mr.  Finney  inform  the  church  how  long  we  must  wait  before  this 
measure  will  be  again  fitted  to  accomplish  the  purpose  for  which 
the  Saviour  intended  it  ?  Though  he  supposes  that  the  anxious 
seat  occupies  "  the  precise  place"  that  baptism  did,  we  can  by  no 
means  consent  to  receive  it  as  an  equivalent.  Baptism  was, 
indeed,  a  test  of  character,  since  obedience  or  disobedience  was 
exercised  in  view  of  a  divine  command  ;  but  the  anxious  seat  cannot 
operate  thus,  except  by  arrogating  to  itself  a  similar  authority. 
We  trust  that  this  may  be  deemed  a  sufficient  answer  to  Mr.  F.'s 
argument  for  the  anxious  scat  as  a  test  of  character. 


ON   REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  127 

The  tendency  of  this  measure  to  foster  delusion  and  create  false 
hopes  is  very  evident.  There  are  some  persons  who  are  fond  of 
notoriety,  and  ever  ready  to  thrust  themselves  forvi^ard  on  any 
occasion,  or  in  any  manner  which  will  attract  to  them  the  notice 
of  others.  To  such  the  anxious  seat  holds  out  a  powerful  tempta- 
tion. This  measure,  if  used  at  all,  must  be  used  without  discrimi- 
nation. It  applies  the  same  treatment  to  all,  and  does  not  permit 
us,  according  to  the  apostolic  direction,  to  make  a  difterence,  "  hav- 
ing compassion  on  some,"  "  and  pulling  others  out  of  the  fire." 
While  it  unduly  discourages,  and  in  many  cases  overwhelms  with 
despair,  the  timid  and  ditfident,  it  invites  forward  the  noisy  and 
bustling,  who  need  to  be  repressed.  Others  again  will  go  to  the 
anxious  seat,  who  are  not  properly  awakened,  upon  whom,  indeed, 
the  truth  has  produced  no  effect ;  but  they  go  because  they  have 
been  persuaded  that  to  do  so  is  **  to  do  something  for  Christ,"  and 
that  it  will  be  **  an  important  point  gained  towards  their  conver- 
sion." Mr.  Finney  agrees  with  us  in  supposing  that  such  public 
manifestations  will  olten  be  made  by  persons  who  have  not  the  feel- 
ings indicated  ;  for  however  irrational  a  man's  theories  may  be,  he 
cannot  refrain,  sometimes,  out  of  connexion  with  them,  from  talking 
common  sense.  On  one  occasion,  when  he  is  out  of  his  controver- 
sial attitude,  he  says  to  his  congregation,  "  perhaps  if  I  should  put 
it  to  you  now,  you  would  all  rise  up  and  vote  that  you  were  agreed 
in  desiring  a  revival,  and  agreed  to  have  it  now ;"  and  he  then  goes 
on  to  prove  to  them,  that  nevertheless  they  are  not  agreed.  Doubt- 
less it  would  be  so,  and  in  hke  manner  will  many  go  to  the  anxious 
seat,  who  are  not  "  anxious."  And  the  great  majority  of  all  who 
go  will  go  under  the  influence  of  erroneous  impressions  and  wrong 
excitement.  Whatever  may  be  the  theory  of  the  anxious  seat,  in 
practice  it  is  not  used  for  the  purpose  of  making  visible  and  thus 
rendering  permanent  the  impressions  made  by  the  truth,  nor  is  such 
its  effect.  This  is  most  fully  disclosed  by  Mr.  Finney.  Those 
who  have  been  affected  by  the  truth,  and  who  obey  the  summons 
to  the  anxious  seat,  will  not  go  with  the  view  of  making  known 
their  state  of  mind  to  their  spiritual  adviser.  They  will  ordinarily 
make  this  *  pilgrimage  to  Mecca,'  because  they  have  been  deceived 
into  the  belief  that  it  is  a  necessary  step  towards  their  salvation  ; 
and  that  they  are  rendering  to  Christ  an  acceptable  service  by  thus 
attending  upon  an  institution  which  is  as  good  as  baptism,  or  per- 
haps a  little  better.  The  excitement  which  draws  persons  of  these 
different  classes  to  the  anxious  seats,  not  being  produced  by  the 
truth,  and  yet  partaking  of  a  religious  character,  must  tend 
to  conduct  the  mind  to  error  and  delusion.  Some,  no  doubt, 
who,  in  the  heat  of  the  moment,  have  taken  this  step  before 
so  many  witnesses,  will  feel  that  they  are  committed,  and 
rather  than  be  talked  of  as  apostates  through  the  whole  congre- 
gation, they  will  be  induced  to  counterfeit  a  change  which  they 
have  not  experienced.  We  have  not  been  surprised,  therefore, 
to  learn,  what  is  an  unquestionable  fact,  that  where  this  measure 


128  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

has  been  most  used,  many  hypocrites  have  been  introduced  into 
the  church — men  professing  godhness,  but  Hving  in  the  practice 
of  secret  vi^ickedness.  And  a  still  greater  number,  through  the 
operation  of  the  same  influence,  have  been  led  to  cherish  false 
hopes.  In  the  mind  of  an  individual  who  has  gone  to  the  anxious 
seat,  an  important  place  will  be  filled  by  the  desire  to  come  out 
well  in  the  estimation  of  the  multitude  who  have  looked  upon  this 
declaration  of  his  seriousness;  and,  already  too  much  disposed  to 
judge  favourably  of  himself,  he  will  be  thus  still  more  inclined  to 
rest  satisfied  with  insuflicient  evidences  of  a  gracious  change. 
Every  extraneous  influence  of  this  kind,  which  is  brought  to  bear 
upon  a  mind  engaged  in  the  delicate  business  of  forming  an  esti- 
mate of  itself,  must  tend  to  mislead  and  delude  it. 

The  anxious  seat,  no  matter  how  judiciously  managed,  is  liable 
to  the  objection  here  advanced.  It  excites  the  mind  and  thus 
urges  it  forward,  at  the  same  time  that  it  thrusts  aside  the  truth, 
the  attractive  power  of  which  is  alone  sufficient  to  draw  it  into  its 
proper  orbit.  But  the  intrinsic  tendency  of  this  measure  to  lead 
the  mind  astray  is  very  greatly  enhanced  by  the  manner  in  which 
it  is  conducted  by  Mr.  Finney  and  his  imitators.  The  ordinary 
course  of  proceeding  with  those  who  come  forward  to  occupy  the 
anxious  seat  is  on  this  wise.  They  are  exhorted  to  submit  to  God 
during  the  course  of  the  prayer  which  the  preacher  is  about  to 
offer.  They  are  told  that  this  is  a  work  which  they  can  perform 
of  themselves.  They  have  only  to  summon  up  all  their  energies, 
and  put  forth  one  Herculean  determination  of  will,  and  the  work 
is  done.  A  strong  pull,  as  in  the  case  of  a  dislocated  limb,  will 
jerk  the  heart  straight,  and  all  will  be  well.  At  the  conclusion  of 
the  prayer,  they  are  called  upon  to  testify  whether  they  have  sub- 
mitted. All  who  make  this  profession,  without  any  further  exami- 
nation, are  at  once  numbered  and  announced  as  converts.  Some- 
times a  room,  or  some  separate  place,  is  provided  to  which  they 
are  directed  to  repair.  Those  who  remain  are  upbraided  for  their 
•  rebellion,  and  again  urged  to  energize  the  submitting  volition  dur- 
ing another  prayer.  And  this  process  is  continued  as  long  as  there 
is  a  prospect  of  its  yielding  any  fruit.  Does  it  need  any  argument 
or  illustration  to  show,  that  the  anxious  seat,  thus  managed,  must 
be  a  very  hot-bed  of  delusion?  The  duty  here  urged  upon  the 
sinner  is  not,  as  we  have  shown  in  our  former  article,  the  duty 
which  the  Bible  urges.  We  are  at  no  loss  to  understand  why  Mr. 
Finney  presents  the  sinner's  duty  in  this  form.  Submission  seems 
to  be  more  comprised  than  some  other  duties  within  a  single  men- 
tal act,  and  more  capable  of  instant  performance.  Were  the 
sinner  directed  to  repent,  it  might  seem  to  imply  that  he  should 
take  some  little  time  to  think  of  his  sins,  and  of  the  Being  whom 
he  has  off*ended ;  or  if  told  to  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
he  might  be  led  to  suppose  that  he  could  not  exercise  this  faith 
until  he  had  called  up  before  his  mind  the  considerations  proper  to 
show  him  his  lost  condition,  and  the  suitableness  of  the  offered 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  12$ 

Saviour.  Repentance  and  faith,  therefore,  will  not  so  well  answer 
his  purpose.  But  with  submission,  he  can  move  the  sinner  to  the 
instant  performance  of  the  duty  involved,  or,  as  he  says  in  his 
Saxon  way,  can  '*  break  him  down,"  "  break  him  down  on  the 
spot,"  "  melt  him  right  down  clear  to  the  ground,  so  that  he  can 
neither  stand  nor  go."  In  the  mental  darkness,  consequent  upon 
this  unscriptural  exhibition  of  his  duty,  and  while  flurried  and  be- 
wildered by  the  excitement  of  the  scene,  the  sinner  is  to  perform 
the  double  duty  of  submitting,  and  of  deciding  that  he  has  submitted. 
Who  can  doubt  that,  under  these  circumstances,  multitudes  have 
been  led  to  put  forth  a  men'al  act, and  say  to  themselves,  "There, 
it  is  done,"  and  then  hold  up  the  hand  to  tell  the  preacher  they 
have  submitted,  while  their  hearts  remain  as  before,  except,  indeed, 
that  now  the  mists  of  religious  delusion  are  gathering  over  them? 
Had  this  system  been  designed  to  lead  the  sinner,  in  some  plausi- 
ble way,  to  self-deception,  in  what  important  respect  could  it  have 
been  better  adapted  than  it  now  is  to  this  purpose? 

The  test-question  propounded  to  the  occupant  of  the  anxious 
seat  is  not  always  made  as  definite  as  we  have  represented. 
Sometimes  it  is  proposed  in  as  loose  and  vague  a  form  as  this: 
"  Would  you  not  be  willing  to  vote  that  God  should  be  the  Supreme 
Ruler?"  and  an  aflirmative  answer  to  this  question  has  been 
deemed  and  proclaimed  adequate  evidence  of  submission,  and  the 
assenting  individual  filed  off  among  the  "new  converts."  So 
unbecoming  and  foreign  from  the  true  nature  of  religion  have 
been  the  attempts  often  made  by  these  preachers  to  produce  an 
excitement;  so  indecent  the  anxiety  manifested  to  force  upon  the 
anxious  sinner  some  expression  or  sign  which  might  authorize  them 
to  make  use  of  his  name  to  swell  their  list  of  converts,  that  we 
can  liken  it  only  to  the  manner  in  which  the  recruiting  serjeant,  by 
the  display  of  drum  and  fife  and  banner,  and  if  this  will  not  an- 
swer, by  the  intoxication  of  his  dupe,  persuades  him  to  accept  a 
piece  of  the  king's  money,  and  thus  binds  him  to  the  service  and 
increases  his  own  reward.  The  chief  difference  is,  that  the  enlist- 
ed soldier  soon  perceives  that  he  has  been  caught  with  guile,  and 
bitterly  deplores  the  consequences  of  his  delusion,  but  the  deceived 
sinner  will,  in  many  instances,  remain  deceived  until  he  learns  his 
mistake  at  the  bar  of  his  Judge. 

Lest  the  proclamation,  upon  the  most  slight  and  insufldcient 
grounds,  that  the  anxious  sinner  is  a  convert,  should  not  act  with 
suflScient  power  upon  his  sense  of  character  to  make  him  counter- 
feit a  Christian  deportment,  or  deceive  himself  into  the  belief  that 
he  is  a  true  disciple  of  Christ,  there  is  provided  an  additional  new 
measure,  the  immediate  admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper  of  all  who 
profess  themsehes  converts.  It  will  be  at  once  seen  how  this  mea- 
sure plays  into  the  rest  of  the  system,  and  assists  the  operation  of 
the  whole.  Mr.  Finney,  to  perfect  his  system,  has  but  to  take  one 
further  step,  and  maintain  that  no  church  has  the  ri^ht  to  discipline 
any  of  its  members  who  have  been  thrown  in  by  the  operation  of 

9 


130  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

the  new  measures.  This  is  evidently  v^^anting  to  complete  his  plan, 
which  ought  to  provide  some  method  for  retaining  his  converts  in 
the  church,  as  well  as  for  their  easy  introduction  into  it.  And 
why  should  he  hesitate  to  make  this  small  addition  ?  It  is  surely 
more  defensible  than  many  other  parts  of  his  system.  We  should 
not  be  surprised  to  find  a  denial  that  the  "set  of  old,  stiff,  dry,  cold 
elders,"  that  have  crept  into  our  churches,  have  any  authority  to 
discipline  his  converts,  figuring  at  large  in  the  neat  pattern-card 
which  he  issues,  of  the  newest  fashion  in  measures.  Mr.  Finney 
endeavours  to  show  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  young  convert  to 
apply  immediately  for  admission  to  the  Church,  and  thetluty  of  the 
church  to  yield  to  this  application.  In  Chatham-street  Chapel,  it 
seems,  their  practice  is  to  propound  applicants  for  a  whole  month, 
but  the  reason  of  this  long  delay  is,  that  in  a  city  many  strangers 
will  apply,  and  it  is  necessary  for  the  session  to  have  opportunity 
to  inquire  respecting  ihem.  In  the  country,  however,  the  church 
will  *'  sin  and  grieve  the  Holy  Spirit,"  by  debarring  from  the  com- 
munion any  who  apply,  *'  if  they  are  sufl[iciently  instructed  on  the 
subject  of  religion  to  know  what  they  are  doing,  and  if  their  gene- 
ral character  is  such  that  they  can  be  trusted  as  to  their  sincerity 
and  honesty  in  making-  a  profession."  "  Great  evil,"  he  says,  "  has 
been  done  by  this  practice  of  keeping  persons  out  of  the  church  a 
long  time  to  see  if  they  were  Christians."  No  doubt  great  evil 
has  been  done  to  the  credit  of  his  system,  wherever  the  converts 
made  by  it  have  been  thus  tried,  but  this  is  the  only  evil  that  we 
have  ever  known  to  result  from  the  practice.  Under  the  ordinary 
ministrations  of  the  Gospel  there  is  much  that  springs  up  having 
the  semblance  of  piety,  but  without  root,  so  that  it  soon  withers 
away.  And  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  much  more  than  the  usual 
number  of  these  fair-looking  but  rootless  plants  will  start  up  in 
Mr.  Finney's  forcing-bed.  Surely,  then,  the  voice  of  wisdom  and 
of  duty  calls  upon  the  church  to  wait  until  the  blossom,  if  not  the 
fruit,  shall  have  appeared.  When  the  seeming  but  deceived  con- 
vert has  been  once  admitted  within  the  pale  of  the  church,  the 
motives  and  means  of  continued  self-deception  are  so  greatly  mul- 
tiplied, as  to  leave  but  little  ground  for  hope  that  he  will  ever  be 
awakened  from  his  false  security  until  the  dawning  light  of  another 
world  breaks  in  upon  him.  The  church  also  owes  a  duty  to  her- 
self in  this  matter.  The  addition  of  unworthy  members  to  her 
communion,  by  rendering  frequent  acts  of  discipline  necessary, 
will  expose  her  to  distraction  within,  and  to  scandal  without.  But 
these  weighty  considerations,  plainly  involving  the  eternal  welfare 
of  individuals  and  the  true  prosperity  of  the  church,  must  all  give 
way  to  provide  for  the  effectual  working  of  Mr.  Finney's  sys- 
tem. Better  that  the  church  should  be  filled  with  the  hypocriti- 
cal and  the  deluded,  than  that  the  new  measures  should  lose  their 
credit. 

Many  of  Mr.  F.*s  opinions  tend  to  this  same  point,  to  provide 
for  smuggling  his  converts  into  the  church,  before  they  themselves, 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  131 

or  the  session  to  whom  they  apply,  can  have  had  fall  opportunity 
to  judge  whether  they  have  undergone  a  change  of  heart.  "  There 
is  no  need,"  says  he,  "  of  young  converts  having  or  expressing 
doubts  as  to  their  conversion.  There  is  no  more  need  of  a  person's 
doubting  whether  he  is  now  in  favour  of  God's  government,  than 
there  is  for  a  man  to  doubt  whether  he  is  in  favour  of  one 
government  or  another.  It  is,  in  fact,  on  the  face  of  it,  absurd 
for  a  person  to  talk  of  doubting  on  such  a  point,  if  he  is  intelligent 
and  understands  what  he  is  talking  about."  Though  it  might 
perplex  a  man  of  plain  understanding  to  conceive  how  such 
instruction  as  this  could  be  reconciled  with  the  scriptural  account 
of  the  deceitfulness  of  man's  heart,  yet  its  meaning  and  drift  are 
perfectly  intelligible.  Its  tendency,  and  it  would  hardly  be 
uncharitable  to  say,  its  design,  is  to  form  a  bold,  swaggering.  Peter- 
like confidence,  which  may  preserve  the  fresh  convert  from  mis- 
givings of  mind  during  the  brief  interval  of  a  few  hours,  or  at  most 
days,  which  must  elapse  between  his  professed  submission  and  his 
reception  into  the  church.  The  next  thing  is  to  impress  him  with 
the  belief  that  it  is  his  duty  to  apply  at  once  for  admission  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  this  is  most  fully  done.  He  is  told  that  if  he 
waits,  '*  he  .will  probably  go  halting  and  stumbling  along  through 
life."  No,  there  must  be  no  waiting — drive  on,  or  the  tempestuous 
gust  will  die  away.  Then  the  church  must  be  taught  to  throw 
open  her  doors,  and  this  she  is  told  to  do  under  the  pains  and 
penalties  of  "  grieving  the  Holy  Spirit"  if  she  refuse.  Some 
examination,  however,  must  be  held,  and  the  result  of  this  might 
be  to  show  that  many  of  the  applicants  had  been  insufficiently  or 
erroneously  instructed  in  the  plan  of  salvation.  And  see  how 
beautifully  Mr.  Finney  provides  for  this  difficulty.  "  In  examining 
young  converts  for  admission  tp  the  church,  their  consciences 
should  not  be  ensnared  by  examining  them  too  extensively  or 
minutely  on  doctrinal  points"  The  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "  too 
extensively  or  minutely,"  may  be  readily  understood  from  the 
exposition  we  have  given  of  Mr.  Finney's  theological  system. 
The  church  session  who  should  ask  of  one  of  these  converts,  what 
is  the  ground  of  your  hope  of  salvation  ?  might  receive  for  an 
answer,  "  My  submission  to  God  : — the  world  is  divided  into  two 
great  political  parties,  the  one  with  Satan,  the  other  with  God  at 
its  head  ;  and  I  have  energized  a  mighty  volition,  and  resolved  to 
join  the  latter  and  vote  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  governor  of 
the  universe."  Suppose  the  examination  to  proceed  a  little  further 
— Have  you  been  led  to  see  the  depravity  of  your  heart  ?  "I 
know  nothing  of  a  depraved  heart.  All  I  know  on  this  subject  is, 
that  ever  since  Adam  sinned,  every  person  begins  to  sin  when  he 
becomes  a  moral  agent." — But  does  not  David  say,  I  was  shapen 
in  sin  ?  "  Yes,  but  the  substance  of  a  conceived  foetus  cannot  be 
sin,  and  David  only  meant  that  he  sinned,  when  he  sinned."  Have 
you  any  reason  to  believe  that  your  soul  has  been  washed  in  the 
fountain  set  open  for  the  remission  of  sin ?     "I  know  nothing  of 


132  ON    REVIVALS    OP    RELIGION. 

any  such  operation.  I  have  been  taught  that  it  is  a  great  error 
introduced  into  the  church  by  the  accursed  traditions  of  the  elders, 
to  speak  as  though  in  religion  there  occurred  anything  like  the 
washing  off  of  some  defilement."— Upon  whom  do  you  rely  for 
strength  in  the  conflict  which  is  before  you  ?  "  Upon  the  might 
of  my  own  arm." — Do  you  not  pray  to  God  to  strengthen  you  and 
enable  you  to  discharge  your  duties  ?  "  No,  it  would  be  an  insult 
to  God  to  pray  thus,  as  though  he  had  commanded  me  to  do  what 
I  am  not  able  to  perform." — -Do  you  believe  that  God  is  all-power- 
ful ?  "  Yes  ;  that  is,  I  believe  he  can  do  some  things,  and  others 
too,  if  his  creatures  will  not  oppose  him." — Can  he  preserve  an^ 
promote  the  prosperity  of  the  church  ?  "  Yes,  by  taking  advan- 
tage of  excitements."  The  session,  somewhat  dissatisfied,  we  may 
suppose,  with  this  examination,  resolve  to  question  the  candidate 
more  closely  on  some  of  these  points.  But — Hold,  hold,  cries  Mr. 
Finney,  take  care  how  you  ensnare  the  conscience  of  this  young 
convert  by  examining  him  too  extensively  or  minutely  on  doctrinal 
points. 

The  way  is  thus  laid  perfectly  open  for  the  entrance  of  his  con- 
verts into  the  church.  But  how  shall  they  be  kept  there  ?  There 
are  two  new  measures  proposed  by  him  that  might  seem  to  aim  at 
this  end,  but  both  of  them  inadequate.  The  first  is,  that  they  shall 
be  kept  in  ignorance  of  the  standards  of  the  church  they  have 
entered.  Young  converts,  he  says,  ought  to  be  indoctrinated,  but 
he  avowedly  excludes  from  the  means  of  indoctrination,  "  teaching 
the  catechism."  This  would  answer  if  he  could  only  keep  in  the 
first  ones,  until  he  had  introduced  a  majority  into  every  church 
who  should  know  nothing  of  the  catechism  or  confession  of  faith. 
The  other  measure  proposed  is,  that  his  converts  should  not  be 
made  to  "  file  in  behind  the  old,  stiff*,  dry,  cold  members  and  elders." 
No  doubt,  if  they  could  be  permitted  to  take  the  lead  and  manage 
all  things  in  their  own  way,  there  would  be  no  difficulty.  But 
there  is  reason  to  apprehend,  that  age,  combined  with  Christian 
experience  and  clothed  with  official  pre-eminence,  will  still  insist 
upon  its  right  to  direct  the  young  and  inexperienced. 

Nothing  can  be  more  evident  than  that  these  new  measures  are 
remarkably  adapted  to  form  and  propagate  a  false  religion.  Indeed, 
we  have  little  doubt  that  the  whole  system  has  originated  in  a  total 
misconception  of  the  true  nature  of  religion.     This  charge*  was,  in 

*See  a  pamj)hlet,  published  in  1828,  entitled  "  Letters  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Beecher 
and  Rev.  Mr.  Nettleton  on  the  New  Measures  in  promoting  Revivals  of  Religion." 
This  pamphlet  contains  a  masterly  discussion  of  the  subject.  Though  it  was  written 
before  the  new  measures  had  as  fully  disclosed  themselves  as  now,  its  allegations 
have  been  more  than  sustained,  and  all  its  prophecies  of  evil  time  has  already  con- 
verted into  history.  We  fear  that  the  continued  press  of  new  publications  has  crowd- 
ed this  pamphlet  out  of  sight.  It  deserves  more  than  an  ephemeral  existence,  and 
we  shall  be  glad  if  this  notice  has,  in  any  degree,  the  effect  of  calling  attention  to  it. 
It  has  never  been  answered.  Mr.  Finney,  we  are  told,  makes  it  his  rule  never  to 
reply  to  any  attacks  upon  him,— it  should  have  been  added,  save  by  bitter  vitupera- 
tions from  the  pulpit      A  very  convenient  principle  this. 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 


\k 


substance,  alleged  against  Mr.  Finney  several  years  since,  and  sub- 
stantiated from  the  only  production  which  he  had  then  given  to  the 
public.  It  was  fully  made  out,  to  the  conviction,  we  imagine,  of 
every  candid  mind  that  examined  the  evidences,  but  its  only  effect 
upon  Mr.  Finney,  so  far  as  we  can  perceive,  has  been  to  induce 
him  to  throw  in  an  unintelligible  paragraph  upon  the  difference 
between  emotion  and  principle.  "  One  of  the  first  things,"  he  says, 
"  young   converts   should    be   taught,   is   to   distinguish   between 

emotion  and  principle  in  religion By  emotion  I  mean,  that 

state  of  mind  of  which  we  are  conscious,  and  which  we  C3.\\  feelings 
an  involuntary  state  of  mind  that  arises  of  course  wrhen  we  are  in 
certain  circumstances,  or  under  certain  influences.  But  these 
emotions  should  be  carefully  distinguished  from  religious  principle. 
By  principle,  I  do  not  mean  any  substance  or  root  or  seed  or 
sprout  implanted  in  the  soul.  But  I  mean  the  voluntary  decision 
of  the  mind,  the  firm  determination  to  act  our  duty  and  to  obey 
the  will  of  God,  by  which  a  Christian  should  always  be  governed." 
Does  he  intend  here,  by  maintaining  that  our  emotions  are  invo- 
luntary, to  deny  them  any  moral  character  ?  Does  he  mean  to 
tell  us,  that  the  emotion  of  complacency  towards  holiness  is  not  an 
adequate  or  proper  motive  for  the  cultivation  of  holiness  in  our- 
selves? Are  all  those  actions  which  are  prompted  by  our  emo- 
tions divested  of  morality,  or,  if  moral,  are  they  sinful  ?  And, 
then,  what  a  definition  of  a  principle,  as  distinguished  from  an 
emotion  ?  A  voluntary  decision  of  mind  ?  A  man  decides  to  do 
some  act  because  he  thinks  it  right.  His  decision  is  a  principle. 
He  has  stumbled  into  this  arrant  nonsense,  over  his^islike  to  mental 
dispositions.  But  we  will  not  puzzle  ourselves  or  our  readers  in 
the  attempt  further  to  analyse  this  mysterious  paragraph.  What- 
ever may  be  its  meaning  or  design,  it  will  not  turn  aside  the  charge 
that  the  general  tendency  of  Mr.  Finney's  representations  is  to  give 
an  undue  predominance  to  the  imaginative  emotions  in  religion. 
We  are  susceptible  of  two  very  different  classes  of  emotion, — the 
one  connected  with  the  imagination,  the  other  with  the  moral  sense  j 
the  one  awakened  by  objects  that  are  grand,  terrible,  &c.,  the 
other  called  into  exercise  by  the  perception  of  moral  qualities. 
These  two  kinds  of  emotion  produce  widely  different  effects  upon 
the  animal  frame.  Let  a  predominant  emotion  of  terror  fill  the 
mind  and  it  will  fever  the  blood,  quicken  the  pulse,  blanch  the  cheek, 
and  agitate  the  whole  frame.  Each  moment  that  the  emotion 
becomes  more  intense,  the  bodily  excitement  increases,  and  it  may 
be  heightened  until  life  is  destroyed  by  it.  But  let  the  mind  be 
occupied  with  disapprobation  of  moral  evil,  and  in  the  intensest 
degree  of  this  emotion,  how  feeble  in  comparison  is  its  effect  upon 
the  powers  and  functions  of  animal  life  ?  This  close  sympathy  of 
the  imaginative  emotions  with  the  bodily  frame  gives  them  a  dan- 
gerous pre-eminence.  The  same  object  often  calls  into  simultane- 
ous action  emotions  belonging  to  both  these  classes.  The  contem- 
plation of  his  sinful  life  may  call  up  at  once  in  the  mind  of  a  man 


134  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

abhorrence  of  sin  and  dread  of  its  evil  consequences,  and  there  is 
reason  to  fear  that,  without  great  care,  the  latter  feeling  will  absorb 
the  former.  Now,  it  is  just  here  that  we  think  Mr.  Finney  has  erred, 
and  gone  over  into  the  regions  of  enthusiastic  excitement.  He  is 
evidently  possessed  of  an  ardent  temperament,  and  the  calm  and 
gentle  excitement  attending  the  exercise  of  the  moral  emotions, 
disconnected  with  the  imaginative,  has  not  sufficient  relish  for  him. 
It  is  comparatively  tame  and  tasteless.  For  the  same  reason,  he 
discards  as  "  animal  excitement,"  all  the  gentler  feelings  ;  such  as, 
like  the  *'  soft  and  plaintive  music  of  an  Eolian  harp,"  spread  them- 
selves through  the  soul  and  dissolve  it  in  tender  sadness  or  pity. 
He  turns  from  these  to  the  stronger  and  more  boisterous  emotions, 
which,  stirring  both  soul  and  body  like  the  sound  of  the  trumpet, 
can  yield  the  luxurious  play  and  revel  of  intense  sensation.  When 
a  feeling  of  this  character  is  awakened  by  religious  objects,  though 
it  should  swallow  up  the  accompanying  emotion  inspired  by  con- 
science, yet  the  imaginative  mind  entertains  no  doubt  of  the  religious 
character  of  the  passion  which  fills  and  moves  it.  It  is  in  this  region, 
where  prevails  the  awakening  din  of  the  storm  and  tempest  of  pious 
passion,  that  Mr.  Finney,  as  it  appears  to  us,  has  constructed  the 
chief  dwelling-place  of  religion.  For  the  proof  of  this,  we  appeal 
to  the  general  tone  of  swelling  extravagance  which  marks  all  his 
sentiments,  and  to  the  habitual  tenor  of  his  illustrations  and  instruc- 
tions. He  teaches  in  various  places  and  ways,  that  the  progress 
of  religion  in  the  heart  cannot  properly  be  set  forth  under  the 
symbol  of  the  growth  of  "  any  root  or  sprout  or  seed,  implanted 
in  the  mind."  Now  it  so  happens  that  one  of  these  figures, 
the  growth  of  a  seed,  was  employed  for  this  very  purpose,  on 
more  than  one  occasion,  by  our  Lord  himself,  and  by  his  apostles. 
And  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  this  is  a  very  fit  and  instruc- 
tive emblem,  if  the  progress  of  religion  be  dependent  on  the 
growth  of  principle — that  is,  of  that  which  is  the  beginning,  or 
which  lays  the  ground  for  a  series  of  actions,  and  determines  them 
•to  be  what  they  are  ;  but  inappropriate  and  deceptive,  as  he  repre- 
sents it  to  be,  if  religion  has  its  origin  in  a  "  deep-seated"  act  of 
the  mind,  and  for  its  increase .  depends  on  the  fitful  gusts  of  pas- 
sionate fervour.  To  the  same  effect  are  the  many  representations 
which  he  puts  forth,  of  the  repugnance  which  the  Christian  will 
feel  when  brought  into  contact  with  a  fellow  Christian  who  is  more 
spiritual  than  himself  This  electric  repulsion  will  take  place  only 
when  their  minds  are  under  the  dominion  of  the  imaginative  emo- 
tions. The  Christian,  whose  religion  is  the  offspring  of  principle, 
and  has  its  range  among  the  emotions  of  the  moral  sense,  will  love 
Christian  excellence,  and  be  attracted  by  it  in  proportion  to  its 
purity  and  brightness.  The  effect  of  greater  holiness  than  his 
own,  whether  seen  in  men,  in  angels,  or  in  God,  will  be  to  increase 
his  admiration  and  draw  him  onward  in  the  divine  life.  This  re- 
pellent effect  of  the  exhibition  of  greater  piety,  Mr.  Finney  sup- 
poses, will  take  place  only  in  those  who  are  considerably  below  it. 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  135 

If  those  around  are  anywhere  "  near  the  mark,"  it  will  "  kindle 
and  bum"  among  them,  until  it  has  warmed  them  all  up  to  its  own 
temperature.  Hence,  in  a  prayer  meeting,  if  a  spiritual  man  leads, 
who  is  "  far  ahead"  of  the  rest,  "  his  prayer  will  repel  them  ;"  but 
it  "  will  awaken  them  if  they  are  not  so  far  behind  as  to  revolt  at 
it  and  resist  it."  And  again  he  says,  "In  the  midst  of  the  warm 
expressions  that  are  flowing  forth,  let  an  individual  come  in  who 
is  cold,  and  pour  his  cold  breath  out,  like  the  damp  of  death,  and 
it  will  make  every  Christian  that  has  any  feeling,  want  to  get  out 
of  the  meeting."  A  precise  account  this  of  the  operation  of  a 
kind  of  religion  which  has  cut  loose  from  principle  and  conscience, 
and  surrendered  itself  to  the  emotions  of  the  imagination.  And 
in  accommodation  to  this  species  of  religion  must  all  the  arrange- 
ments of  the  prayer  meeting  be  ordered.  "  There  should  be,"  he 
says,  "  but  one  definite  object  before  the  meeting."  Forgetful, — 
perhaps  we  ought  to  say,  reckless, — of  the  model  our  Saviour  has 
given  us,  in  which  there  are  as  many  objects  brought  before  the  mind 
as  it  contains  sentences,  he  censures  and  ridicules  every  prayer 
which  is  not  confined  to  a  single  point.  Unless  some  short  pas- 
sage of  scripture  can  be  found  which  bears  upon  this  specific 
point,  he  says,  no  portion  of  the  Bible  should  be  read  at  the  meet- 
ing. "  Do  not  drag  in  the  word  of  God  to  make  up  a  part  of  the 
meeting  as  a  mere  matter  of  form, — this  is  an  insult  to  God." 
There  must  be  no  "  joyful  singing."  "  When  singing  is  introduced 
in  a  prayer  meeting,  the  hymns  should  be  short,  and  so  selected  as 
to  bring  out  something  solemn,  some  striking  words."  There 
must  be  no  adoration  of  the  Deity.  Yes,  incredible  as  it  may  ap- 
pear, Mr.  Finney  proscribes  and  burlesques  that  subHmest,  holiest 
exercise  of  the  human  mind,  in  which  it  rises  to  the  contemplation 
of  Infinite  Excellence,  and  prostrates  itself  before  it,  rehearsing  the 
perfections  which  it  feels  it  cannot  worthily  celebrate.  "  Some 
men,"  he  says,  "  will  spin  out  a  long  prayer  in  telling  God  who 
and  what  he  is  !  !"  The  tendency  of  all  this  is  easily  perceived. 
We  have  mentioned  the  correspondence  which  always  takes  place 
between  the  movements  of  imaginative  emotions  and  of  the  ani- 
mal frame.  Mr.  Finney  contends  that  the  spirit  of  prayer  is,  in  its 
very  nature  and  essence,  a  spirit  of  agony  ;  and  he  mentions  with 
commendation  a  state  of  mind  in  which  "  there  is  but  one  way  to 
keep  from  groaning,  and  that  is  by  resisting  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Nay,  he  brings  forward,  with  very  special  praise,  the  case  of  a 
man  "  who  prayed  until  he  hied  at  the  nose !  /"  Another  pattern 
is  aflforded  by  a  woman,  "  who  got  into  such  a  state  of  mind  that 
she  could  not  live  without  prayer.  She  could  not  rest,  day  nor 
night,  unless  there  was  somebody  praying.  Then  she  would  be  at 
ease  ;  but  if  they  ceased,  she  would  shriek  with  agony ^  Of  himself 
he  says,  "  Brethren,  in  my  present  state  of  health,  I  find  it  impossible 
to  pray  as  much  as  I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  doing,  and  continue 
to  preach Now  will  not  you,  who  are  in  healthy  throw  your- 
selves into  this  work,  and  bear  this  burden,  and  lay  yourselves  out 


136  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

in  prayer  ?'*  Again,  it  is  well  known  that  persons  who  are  un- 
der the  dominion  of  imagination  soon  become  a  prey  to  delusion. 
All  their  inward  impressions  are  projected  into  the  form  of  exter- 
nal realities.  Their  forebodings  of  mind  are  to  them  the  shadows 
of  coming  events,  and  they  assume  the  character  and  authority  of 
prophets.  This  peculiarity  is  fully  endorsed  by  Mr.  Finney, 
under  the  name  of"  spiritual  discernment."  There  was  a  woman, 
in  a  certain  place — almost  all  his  stories  of  this  kind  are  about 
women — who  "  became  anxious  about  sinners,  and  went  to  pray- 
ing for  them — and  she  finally  came  to  her  minister  and  talked  with 
him,  and  asked  him  to  appoint  an  anxious  meeting,  for  she/e/^  that 
one  was  needed.  The  minister  put  her  off,  for  he  felt  nothing  of 
it.  The  next  week  she  came  again,  and  besought  him  to  appoint 
an  anxious  meeting ;  she  knew  there  would  be  somebody  to  come, 
for  she  felt  as  if  God  was  going  to  pour  out  his  Spirit.  He  put 
her  off  again.  And  finally  she  said  to  him,  *  If  you  don't  appoint 
an  anxious  meeting  /  shall  die,  for  there  is  certainly  going  to  be  a 
revival.'  The  next  Sabbath  he  appointed  a  meeting."  The  result 
of  course  was,  as  in  all  other  published  predictions  of  this  kind, 
that  the  oracle  was  fulfilled.  He  had  several  other  stories  to  the 
same  effect ;  and  the  expectation  of  these  women,  founded  on  no 
evidence  save  that  of  individual  feeling,  he  calls  "  spiritual  dis- 
cernment ;"  and  gives  warrant  to  those  who  possess  it  to  arraign 
their  ministers  and  elders,  and  fellow  members  of  the  church,  as 
"  blind  "  and  "  sleepy."  "  Devoted,  praying  Christians,"  he  says, 
"  often  see  these  things  so  clearly,  and  look  so  far  ahead,  as  greatly 
to  stumble  others.  They  sometimes  almost  seem  to  prophesy." 
They  do  indeed  not  only  almost,  but  altogether,  seem  to  prophesy, 
and  so  has  many  an  enthusiast  before  them.  This  disposition  to 
put  faith  in  spectral  illusions  is  indeed  a  very  common  mark  of 
enthusiasm,  and  the  reason  of  it  is  well  understood  by  all  who  are 
acquainted  with  the  philosophy  of  the  human  feelings. 

In  like  contradiction  to  the  true  nature  of  religion,  but  in  perfect 
keeping  with  the  false  notion  of  it  which  we  suppose  Mr.  Finney 
to  have  adopted,  are  his  opinions  respecting  the  absolute  necessity 
of  excitement  to  the  general  prosperity  of  religion  in  the  world, 
and  to  its  growth  in  the  Christian's  heart.  "  The  state  of  the 
world  is  still  such,  and  probably  will  be  till  the  millennium  is  fully 
come,  that  religion  must  be  mainly  promoted  by  these  excitements." 
His  professed  theory  on  this  subject  is  that  there  must  be  an  alter- 
nation of  excitement  and  decline — that  after  a  great  religious  stir 
among  the  people,  they  will  decline  and  keep  on  declining  "till 
God  can  have  time  so  to  speak,  to  shape  the  course  of  events  so  as 
to  produce  another  excitement," — then  comes  another  decline,  and 
so  on.  He  represents  this  same  spasmodic  action  as  taking  place 
in  each  Christian's  experience.  It  is  impossible,  he  thinks,  to  keep 
a  Christian  in  such  a  state  as  not  to  do  injury  to  a  revival,  unless 
he  pass  through  the  process  of  "breaking  dow^n"  every  few  days. 
"  I  have  never  laboured,"  he  says,  "  in  revivals  in  company  with 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  137 

any  one  who  could  keep  in  the  work  and  be  fit  to  manage  a 
revival  continually,  who  did  not  pass  through  this  process  o(  break- 
ing  down  as  often  as  once  in  two  or  three  weeks."  He  adds,  "  I 
was  surprised  to  find  a  few  years  since  that  the  phrase  '  break- 
ing down'  was  a  stumbling  block  to  certain  ministers  and  professors 
of  religion — they  laid  themselves  open  to  the  rebuke  administered 
to  Nicodemus,  'Art  thou  a  master  in  Israel,  and  knowest  not  these 
things  V  "  We  are  surprised  that  any  one  should  have  been  igno- 
rant of  the  meaning  of  this  "  breaking  down."  It  is  very  intelligi- 
ble. In  consequence  of  the  law  to  which  we  have  several  times 
referred,  when  the  imaginative  emotions  are  strongly  excited  the 
bodily  frame  sympathizes  powerfully  with  the  excitement,  and  all 
the  chords  of  the  system  are  so  tensely  strung  that  they  cannot 
long  bear  it.  Hence  follows  reaction,  exhaustion, "  breaking  down." 
If  religion  be  founded  in  principle,  if  its  peculiar  and  cherished 
emotions  be  those  of  the  conscience,  then  can  there  be  no  call  for 
this  breaking  down  and  jumping  up — this  cicadic  movement.  But 
we  have  dwelt  at  sufficient  length  upon  this  point.  We  were  anx- 
ious to  present  as  complete  evidence  of  the  truth  of  our  position 
as  our  limits  would  permit ;  for  we  do  believe  that  Mr.  Finney's 
mistaken  views  of  the  nature  of  religion  lie  at  the  bottom  of  his 
measures,  and  have  given  to  them  their  character  and  form  ;  and 
that  these  measures,  therefore,  wherever  used,  will  tend  to  propa- 
gate a  false  form  of  religion. 

These  measures  might  have  had  their  origin  in  the  "  New  Divi- 
nity," for  they  are  in  harmony  with  the  theology  as  well  as  the 
religion  of  the  system.  Historical  facts,  however,  have  guided  us 
in  assigning  their  origin  to  erroneous  views  of  religion.  The  new 
measures,  we  believe  were  in  full  action  before  the  theology  of  New 
Haven  shed  its  light  upon  the  world.  We  recollect  that  it  was 
matter  of  surprise  to  many  when  the  conjunction  took  place  be- 
tween the  coarse,  bustling  fanaticism  of  the  New  Measures,  and  the 
refined,  intellectual  abstractions  of  the  New  Divinity.  It  was  a 
union  between  Mars  and  Minerva — unnatural,  and  boding  no  good 
to  the  church.  But  our  readers  will  have  observed  that  there  is  a 
close  and  logical  connexion  between  Mr.  Finney's  theology  and 
his  measures.  The  demand  created  for  the  one  by  the  other,  and 
the  mutual  assistance  which  they  render,  are  so  evident,  that  we 
will  spend  no  time  in  the  explanation  of  them. 

There  is  one  argument  of  Mr.  Finney  in  favour  of  ♦he  new 
measures  which  we  have  not  noticed,  and  to  which  we  should  not 
now  allude,  but  for  a  purpose  which  will  soon  disclose  itself.  This 
argument  is,  in  true  importance,  on  a  perfect  level  with  that  drawn 
from  the  small-clothes,  wigs,  and  fur  caps.  It  consists  in  pro- 
ducing the  names  of  a  great  number  of  wise  and  eminent  men  who 
have  been  prominent  in  introducing  innovations.  All  this  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question — it  is  perfectly  puerile  indeed  to 
introduce  it — unless  these  men  introduced  such  innovations  as  he 
contends  for.     Among  these  new-measure  men  he  introduces  the 


138  ON    REVIVALS    OF   RELIGION. 

name  of  President  Edwards.  And  on  several  occasions  he  makes 
such  a  use  of  the  name  of  this  great  man,  as  is  calculated  to  leave 
upon  the  reader's  mind  the  impression  that  Edwards  had  sanction- 
ed his  proceedings.  He  has  no  right  thus  to  slander  the  dead,  or 
impose  upon  the  living.  It  is  well  known  that  Davenport,  against 
whose  extravagant  fanaticism  Edwards  wrote  at  length,  is  redivivus 
in  Mr.  Finney,  and  that  the  same  scenes  over  which  he  grieved 
and  wept  have  been  re-acted  in  our  day  under  Mr.  Finney's 
auspices.  For  one  of  his  measures,  lay  exhortation,  he  does  dis- 
tinctly claim  the  authority  of  Edwards.  "So  much  opposition," 
he  says,  "  was  made  to  this  practice  nearly  a  hundred  years  ago 
that  President  Edwards  actually  had  to  take  up  the  subject,  and 
write  a  laboured  defence  of  the  rights  and  duties  of  laymen." 
We  were  not  surprised  by  Mr.  Finney's  ignorance  in  confounding 
Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  with  "  bloody  Queen  Mary"  of  England  ; 
we  do  not  demand  from  him  historical  accuracy  ;  we  do  not  look 
indeed  for  anything  like  a  thorough  knowledge  of  any  one  subject, 
for,  should  he  obtain  it,  it  would  surely  pine  away  and  die  for  want 
of  company.  But  we  were  not  quite  prepared  for  such  ignorance 
of  Edwards's  opinions  and  writings.  Can  it  be  ignorance  ?  Charity 
would  dispose  us  to  think  so,  but  we  cannot.  In  the  same  work 
from  which  Mr.  Finney  has  taken  long  extracts,  and  to  which  he 
often  refers,  as  if  familiar  with  its  contents,  Edwards  makes  known 
with  all  plainness  his  opposition  to  lay  exhortation.  He  expressly 
condemns  all  lay  teaching  which  is  not  "  in  the  way  of  conversa- 
tion." He  censures  the  layman  "  when  in  a  set  speech,  of  design, 
he  directs  himself  to  a  multitude,  as  looking  that  they  should  com- 
pose themselves  to  attend  to  what  he  has  to  say ....  and  more  still, 
when  meetings  are  appointed  on  purpose  to  hear  lay  persons  ex- 
hort, and  they  take  it  as  their  business  to  be  speakers."  In  a  pub- 
lished letter  of  his  to  a  friend,  who  had  erred  in  this  matter,  he 
tells  him,  "  You  have  lately  gone  out  of  the  way  of  your  duty,  and 
done  that  which  did  not  belong  to  you,  in  exhorting  a  public  con- 
gregation ; you  ought  to  do  what  good  you  can  by  private, 

brotherly,  humble  admonitions  and  counsels ;  but  'tis  too  much  for 
you  to  exhort  public  congregations,  or  solemnly  to  set  yourself  by 
a  set  speech,  to  counsel  a  room  full  of  people,  unless  it  be  children 
or  those  that  are  much  your  inferiors."  These  are  the  sentiments 
of  Edwards,  and  it  is  hardly  possible  that  Mr.  Finney  should  have 
been  unacquainted  with  them.  Whence  then  this  bold  misrepre- 
sentation ?  This  is  one  illustration  of  that  unscrupulousness  in  the 
use  of  means  for  the  attainment  of  his  ends,  which  he  too  often 
manifests.  With  perfect  nonchalance,  he  will  make  figures,  facts, 
scripture,  everything,  bend  to  the  purpose  he  has  in  hand.  We 
have  often  been  reminded,  while  reading  his  pages,  of  the  calcula- 
tor who,  being  applied  to,  to  make  some  computations,  asked  his 
employer  with  perfect  gravity,  "  On  which  side,  sir,  do  you  wish 
the  balance  to  come  out  ?"  Another  illustration  of  Mr.  F.'s  pecu- 
liar facility  in  this  way  is  at  hand,  and  we  will  give  it.     In  one  of 


ON   REVIVALS    OP    RELIGION.  139 

his  Lectures,  when  endeavouring  to  persuade  the  people  not  to 
contradict  the  truth  preached,  by  their  lives,  and,  as  usual,  inflating 
every  sentiment  to  the  utmost  degree  for  the  accomplishment  of 
his  purpose,  he  says,  "  If  Jesus  Christ  were  to  come  and  preach, 
and  the  church  contradict  it,  it  would  fail — it  has  been  tried  onceJ* 
But  in  another  Lecture,  where  he  is  labouring  might  and  main 
to  prove  that  every  minister  will  be  successful  in  exact  propor- 
tion to  the  amount  of  wisdom  he  employs  in  his  ministration,  he 
is  met  with  the  objection  that  Jesus  Christ  was  not  successful 
in  his  ministry.  But,  reader,  you  do  not  know  the  man  if  you 
imagine  that  this  difliculty  staggers  him  at  all.  Not  in  the 
least.  In  disposing  of  it  he  begins  by  showing  that  "  his  ministry 
was  vastly  more  successful  than  is  generally  supposed,'*  and  ends 
by  proving  that  "  in  fact,  he  was  eminently  successful"  And  no 
doubt,  if  his  argument  required  it,  he  could  prove  that  Christ  was 
neither  successful  nor  unsuccessful.  This  unscrupulous  use  of  any 
means  that  seem  to  offer  present  help,  whether  for  the  attainment 
of  their  objects  within  the  camp  or  without,  was  early  noted  as  a 
peculiar  mark  of  the  new-measure  men.  Dr.  Beecher  says,  in  a 
letter  written  eight  years  since,  "  I  do  know,  as  incident  to  these 
new  measures,  there  is  a  spirit  of  the  most  marvellous  duplicity 
and  double-dealing  and  lying,  surpassing  anything  which  has  come 
up  in  my  day."*  And  the  heaviness  of  this  accusation  will  not  be 
much  lightened  by  any  one  who  has  been  an  attentive  observer  of 
their  movements  since. 

There  only  remains  to  be  noticed,  the  argument  for  the  new 
measures  which  Mr.  Finney  draws  from  their  success.  We  shall 
not  stop  to  dispute  with  him  the  position  which  he  assumes,  that 
the  success  of  any  measure  demonstrates  its  wisdom  and  excel- 

•  This  letter  was  addressed  to  the  Editor  of  the  Christian  Spectator.  It  seems 
that  there  had  been  some  symptoms  of  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  this  Editor,  to 
compromise  with  the  new  measures,  from  a  desire  to  promote  the  circulation  of  his 
work  in  those  regions  where  these  measures  were  then  burning  in  all  their  fury. 
Dr  B.  immediately  writes  this  letter  of  strong  remonstrance,  in  which  in  the  most 
rousing  strain,  he  exhorts  to  firm,  open  and  decided  resistance.  *'  The  more  tho- 
roughly we  do  the  work,"  he  says,  "  of  entire  demrrlition  of  these  new  measures,  the 
sooner  and  safer  we  can  conciliate."  His  opinion  of  Mr.  Finney,  at  that  time,  may 
be  gathered  from  the  following  extract.  ••  Now,  that  such  a  man  as  he  (Mr. 
Nettleton)  should  be  traduced,  and  exposed  to  all  manner  of  evil  falsely,  in  order  to 
save  from  deserved  reprehension  such  a  man  as  Finney  (who,  whatever  talents  or 
piety  he  may  possess,  is  as  far  removed  from  the  talent,  wisdom,  and  judgment,  and 
experience  of  Nettleton,  as  any  corporal  in  the  French  army  was  removed  from  the 
talent  and  generalship  of  Bonaparte),  is  what  neither  my  reason,  nor  my  conscience, 
nor  my  heart  will  endure."  These  were  Dr.  Beecher's  sentiments  in  1827.  Since 
that  time  he  is  understood  to  have  patronised  the  Corporal,  when  he  visited  Boston; 
and  but  lately  he  delivered  a  high  eulogy  upon  him  at  the  West,  in  the  course  of 
which  he  says,  "  I  have  felt  the  beating  of  his  great,  warm  heart  before  God,"  and 
professes  to  have  heard  more  truth  from  him  than  from  any  other  man  in  the  same 
space  of  time.  Dr.  B.'s  opinions,  expressed  in  the  letter  from  which  we  have 
quoted,  profess  to  have  been  formed  from  the  most  full  and  accurate  acquaintance 
with  facts.  Dr.  Beecher  has  an  undoubted  right  to  change  any  of  his  opinions,  but 
he  cannot  expect  the  public  to  give  him  their  confidence  if  he  makes  such  changes 
as  this,  without  rendering  a  more  satisfactory  account  of  them  than  he  has  yet  given 
of  this  one. 


140  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

lence.  No  man  can  maintain  the  ground  which  he  takes  upon 
this  subject,  without  denying  that  it  forms  any  part  of  the  plan  of 
God  in  the  government  of  the  world,  to  bring  good  out  of  evil. 
But  there  is  no  need  of  discussing  this  matter  now.  We  will  grant 
him  the  benefit  of  the  criterion.  It  is  too  late  in  the  day  for  the 
effect  of  this  appeal  to  success.  The  time  wns  when  an  argument 
of  this  nature  might  have  been  plausibly  maintained.  Appearances 
were  somewhat  in  favour  of  the  new  measures.  At  least  wher- 
ever they  were  carried,  converts  were  multiplied,  and  though  the 
churches  were  distracted  ministers  unsettled,  and  various  evils 
wrought,  yet  it  might  have  been  contended  that,  on  the  whole,  the 
bahince  was  in  their  favour.  But  it  is  too  late  now  for  Mr.  Fin- 
ney to  appeal,  in  defence  of  his  measures,  to  the  number  of  con- 
verts made  by  them,  to  the  flourishing  state  of  religion  in  the  west- 
ern part  of  New  York,  where  they  have  been  most  used,  and  to 
the  few  trivial  evils  which  have  been  incident  to  them.  Indeed,  he 
seems  to  have  a  suspicion  that  the  public  possess  more  information 
on  this  subject  than  they  did  a  few  years  since,  and  he  pours  out 
his  wrathful  effusions  on  the  informers.  He  is  animated  with  a  most 
special  dislike  to  letter-writing.  "  Some  men,"  he  says,  "  in  high 
standing  in  the  church,  have  circulated  letters  which  never  were 
printed.  Others  have  had  their  letters  printed  and  circulated. 
There  seems  to  have-  been  a  system  of  letter-writing  about  the 
country."  "  If  Christians  in  the  United  States  expect  revivals  to 
spread,  they  must  give  up  writing  letters"  &c.  " If  the  Church 
will  do  all  her  duty,  the  millennium  may  come  in  this  country  in  three 

years  ;  but  if  this  writing  of  letters  is  to  be  kept  up,  &c 

the  curse  of  God  will  be  on  this  nation,  and  that  before  long."  "  Go 
forward.  Who  would  leave  such  a  work  and  go  to  writing  letters?" 
"  If  others  choose  to  publish  their  slang  and  stuff,  let  the  Lord's 
servants  keep  to  their  work."  Who  will  not  feel  thankful  that 
Jack  Cade's  day  is  gone,  and  a  man  cannot  now  be  hung  "  with 
pen  and  ink-horn  around  his  neck,"  for  being  able  to  write  his  name? 
But  thanks  to  these  much  abused  letter-writers,  we  have  received 
their  testimony,  and  neither  Mr.  Finney's  assertions  nor  his  ravings 
will  shake  the  public  confidence  in  it.  It  is  now  generally  under- 
stood that  the  numerous  converts  of  the  new  measures  have  been,  in 
most  cases,  like  the  morning  cloud  and  the  early  dew.  In  some 
places,  not  a  half,  a  fifth,  or  even  a  tenth  part  of  them  remain.  They 
have  early  "  broken  down,"  and  have  never  got  up  again.  And 
of  those  that  yet  remain,  how  many  are  found  revelling  in  the 
excesses  of  enthusiastic  excitement,  ready  to  start  after  every  new 
vagary  that  offers,  and  mistaking  the  looming  appearances,  the 
"  fata  morgana"  of  the  falsely  refracting  atmosphere  in  which  they 
dwell,  for  splendid  realities  I  How  many  more,  the  chief  part  of 
whose  religion  consists  in  censuring  the  established  order  of  things 
around  them,  in  seeking  to  innovate  upon  the  decent  and  orderly 
solemnities  of  divine  worship,  and  in  condemning  as  unconverted, 
or  cold  and  dead,  the  ministers,  elders,  and  church-members,  who 


ON    REVIVALS    OF   RELIGION.  141 

refuse  to  join  them  !  From  the  very  nature  of  these  measures 
they  must  encounter  the  conscientious  and  decided  opposition  of 
many  devout  Christians,  and  hence  wherever  they  have  been  intro- 
duced, the  churches  have  been  distracted  by  internal  dissensions, 
and  in  many  cases  rent  asunder.  Ministers  v^^ho  have  opposed 
them  have  been  forced  to  abandon  their  charges ;  and  those  who 
have  yielded  to  them  have  been  unsettled  by  their  inability  to  sti- 
mulate sufficiently  the  seared  surface  of  the  public  mind  ;  so  that 
it  is  now  a  difficult  matter  among  the  western  churches  of  New 
York  lo  find  a  pastor  who  has  been  with  his  present  flock  more 
than  two  or  three  years.  Change  and  confusion  are  the  order  of  the 
day.  New  ministers  and  new  measures  must  be  tried,  to  heighten 
an  excitement  already  too  great  to  admit  of  incrense,  or  to  pro- 
duce one  where  the  sensib.lity  has  been  previously  worn  out  by 
overaction.  Rash  and  reckless  men  have  everywhere  rushed  in 
and  pushed  matters  to  extremes,  which  the  originators  of  these 
measures  did  not  at  first  contemplate.  Trickery  of  the  most  dis- 
gusting and  revolting  character  has  been  employed  in  the  conduct 
of  religious  assemblies  ;  and  the  blasphemous  boasts  of  the  revival 
preachers  have  been  rife  throughout  the  land.  Mothers  have 
whipped  their  children  with  rods  to  make  them  submit  to  God  ; 
and  in  this  have  done  right,  if  there  be  truth  in  the  theology,  and 
fitness  in  the  measures  of  Mr.  Finney.  Men  of  taste  and  refine- 
ment have  been  driven  into  scepticism  by  these  frantic  absurdities 
of  what  claims  to  be  the  purest  form  of  religion,  or  they  have 
sought  refuge  in  other  denominations  from  these  disorderly  scenes 
in  ours.  Doctrinal  errors  and  fanatical  delusions  of  the  wildest 
kind  have  started  into  rank  existence.  The  imposture  of  Matthias 
and -the  Perfectionism  of  New  Haven,  are  monster-growths,  in 
difl^erent  directions,  of  this  same  monster-trunk.*  And  no  one  can 
tell  what  new  and  yet  more  monstrous  growths  it  will  cast  out. 
No  form  of  enthusiasm  developes  at  once,  or  soon,  all  its  latent  ten- 
dencies. Though  its  present  course  may  be  comparatively  regu- 
lar and  near  the  truth,  no  mind  can  predict  in  what  errntic  wan- 
derings it  may  be  subsequently  involved.  The  path  of  the  comet 
within  the  limits  of  the  solar  system  can  scarcely  be  distinguished, 
by  the  nicest  observations,  from  the  regular  orbit  of  the  planet ; 
but  it  ultimately  rushes  off  into  unknown  fields  of  space :  and  the 
course  of  enthusiasm  while  in  sight,  like  that  of  the  comet,  will  not 
suffice  to  furnish  us  with  the  elements  of  its  orbit.    To  what  black- 

*  See  the  history  of  "  Matthias  and  his  Impostures,"  by  Col.  William  L.  Stone. 
Col.  Stone  has  rendered  an  important  service  to  the  public  by  the  publication  of  this 
work.  It  furnishes  a  train  of  facts  which  will  astonish  those  who  have  looked  upon 
this  noted  imposture  as  a  sudden  and  isolated  freak  of  the  human  mind.  It  was  our 
purpose  to  make  copious  extracts  from  this  work  to  illustrate  the  opinion  of  its 
author,  that  the  delusion  of  Matthias  and  of  his  victims  "  originated  in  the  same 
spirit  of  fanaticism  which  has  transformed  so  many  Christian  communities  in  the 
northern  and  western  parts  of  New  York,  and  states  contiguous,  into  places  of  moral 
waste  and  spiritual  desolation."  But  we  must  content  ourselves  with  this  reference. 
We  hope  the  work  will  circulate  widely.  It  furnishes  a  salutary  lesson  of  warning 
to  all  who  can  learn  from  the  past. 


142  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

ness  of  darkness  it  may  finally  rush,  we  know  not.  We  might  fill 
a  volume  with  describing  evils  already  wrought  by  the  new  divi- 
nity and  new  measure  system,  and  then  fill  many  more  by  collating 
this  system  with  history,  and  showing  what  evils  are  yet  within 
the  limits  of  its  capabilities. 

We  would  not  be  understood  to  mean  that  no  good  has  been 
produced  under  the  preaching  of  the  new  divinity,  and  the  opera- 
tion of  the  new  measures.  They  have,  doubtless,  in  some  cases, 
been  overruled  for  good,  and  been  made  instrumental  in  producing 
true  conversions.  But  we  do  maintain,  for  we  fully  believe  it  to 
be  true,  that  the  tendency  of  this  system,  of  all  that  is  peculiar  to 
it  as  a  system  of  doctrine  and  of  action,  is  unredeemedly  bad.  We 
have  brought  forward  every  argument  which  we  could  find  in  Mr. 
Finney's  pages,  in  favour  of  his  reforms,  and  in  canvassing  them 
have  presented  our  own  objections.  And  our  readers  must  now 
judge  between  us. 

We  have  one  more  objection  still  to  present,  and  it  would  alone 
be  sufficient  to  outweigh  all  the  considerations  which  Mr.  Finney 
has  presented  in  favour  of  his  measures.  We  mean  the  spirit 
which  accompanies  them.  We  shall  be  under  the  necessity  of  giv- 
ing a  much  briefer  development,  and  fewer  illustrations  of  this 
spirit  than  we  had  intended,  but  we  shall  succeed,  we  think,  in 
showing  that  it  is  the  essential  spirit  of  fanaticism. 

The  first  feature  of  it  to  which  we  invite  attention,  is  its  coarse- 
ness  and  severity.  Mr.  Finney's  language  is  habitually  low  and 
vulgar.  He  revels  in  such  Saxonisms  as  these:  "Let  hell  boil 
over  if  it  will,  and  spew  out  as  many  devils  as  there  are  stones  in 
the  pavement."  "  Look  at  that  sensitive  young  lady ;  is  she  an 
impenitent  sinner  ?  then  she  only  needs  to  die  to  be  as  very  a  devil 
as  there  is  in  hell."  "  Devil"  and  "hell"  are,  indeed,  familiar  to 
him,  "as  household  words."  The  young  men  in  some  of  our  theo- 
logical seminaries,  he  says,  "are  taught  to  look  upon  new  measures 
as  if  they  were  the  very  inventions  of  the  devil.  So  when  they 
come  out,  they  look  about  and  watch,  and  start,  as  if  the  devil 
was  there."  We  imagine  that  all  the  young  men  in  our  semina- 
ries know  that  there  are  men  who  are  equal  to  these  things,  with- 
out any  help  from  the  devil.  In  condemning  those  who  pray, 
"  Lord,  these  sinners  are  seeking  thee,  sorrowing,"  he  says, "  It  is  a 
Lie."  The  men  who  had  promised  to  pay,  each,  a  yearly  sum  to 
the  Oneida  Institute,  but  who  afterwards  refused,  on  the  ground, 
as  one  of  them  assured  us,  that  the  pledge  under  which  they  sub- 
scribed, that  a  thorough  course  of  instruction  should  be  established 
in  the  institution,  had  been  violated,  are  rated  after  this  manner : 
"  Is  this  honest?  Will  such  honesty  as  this  get  them  admitted  into 
heaven  ?  What !  break  your  promise,  and  go  up  and  carry  a  lie 
in  your  right  hand  before  God  ?  If  you  refuse  or  neglect  to  fulfil 
your  promise,  you  are  a  liar,  and  if  you  persist  in  this  you  shall 
have  your  part  in  the  lake  that  burns  with  fire  and  brimstone." 
He  subsequently  adds,  "  You   cannot   pray  until   you   pay   that 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  143 

money.'*  In  dealing  with  impenitent  sinners,  he  will  allow  no 
symptoms  of  compassion  or  pity.  The  church,  in  all  her  conduct, 
must  show  that  she  "  blames  them."  We  must  at  all  times  make 
it  plain,  by  our  deportment,  that  we  "  take  God's  part  against  the 
sinner."  He  thinks  it  a  dreadful  error  even  for  us  to  make  use  of 
our  Saviour's  language  in  praying  for  sinners,  "  Father,  forgive 
them,  they  know  not  what  they  do."  Every  sentence  and  every 
term  must  be  charged  with  fierce  accusation  against  them.  To 
this  harsh  severity  all  the  tender  amenities  of  social  intercourse, 
and  the  still  more  tender  charities  of  the  domestic  affections,  must 
be  sacrificed.  He  maintains  that  parents  can  never  pray  for  their 
children  "in  such  a  way  as  to  have  their  prayers  answered,  until 
they  feel  that  their  children  are  rebels."  And  he  narrates  a  story 
to  show  that  no  mother  can  expect  her  son  to  be  converted,  "  until 
she  is  made  to  take  strong  ground  against  him  as  a  rebel"  Had 
we  space  for  comment  here,  we  might  easily  show  that  no  spirit 
can  claim  fellowship  with  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  thus 
runs  rough-shod  over  all  the  tender  sympathies  and  affections 
of  the  human  heart.  But  it  is  thoroughly  consistent  with  the 
fierceness  of  fanatical  zeal,  which  has  its  play  among  the  stronger 
passions  of  our  nature,  and  looks  with  contempt  upon  whatever  is 
kind,  tender,  gentle,  or  compassionate. 

The  next  feature  of  Mr.  Finney's  spirit  to  which  we  turn,  is  its 
extravagance.  It  is  a  peculiar  mark  of  the  fanatic  that  every  dog- 
ma, every  little  peculiarity  to  which  he  is  attached,  is  made  to  be 
infallibly  certain,  and  infinitely  important.  Should  he  admit  any- 
thing less  than  this  he  would  feel  the  ground  sliding  from  under 
him.  To  hold  natural  sentiments,  and  express  them  plainly,  and 
with  proper  limitations,  would  be  to  sink  all  his  advantage 
and  bring  himself  down  to  a  level  with  others.  His  own  mind, 
too,  is  olten  in  an  uneasy  and  self-doubting  state  which  needs 
confirmation.  Hence  for  the  double  purpose  of  making  a  strong 
impression  on  others,  and  of  strengthening  himself,  every  opinion 
and  sentiment  are  inflated  entirely  beyond  their  natural  limits. 
To  quote  all  the  illustrations  of  this  disposition  to  extravagance 
which  Mr.  Finney's  lectures  afford,  would  be  to  cite  no  inconsider- 
able portion  of  the  whole  volume  which  contains  them.  The  mi- 
nutest things  are  made  matters  of  indispensable  necessity.  Every 
rag  which  he  touches  is  henceforth  endowed  with  the  power  of 
working  miracles.  He  is  himself  addicted  to  telling  stories  and 
parables  from  the  pulpit  to  illustrate  the  truth,  and  we  have  no 
objection  to  this  provided  it  is  done — as  Mr.  F,  says  the  devil 
vtrishes  it  done — so  as  to  comport  with  the  proper  dignity  of  the  pul- 
pit. We  have  known  many  preachers  who  exceUed  in  this  style 
of  preaching.  But  Mr.  F.  is  not  content  with  maintaining  that 
this  is  a  good,  and  for  some  men,  the  best  way  of  presenting  and 
enforcing  the  truth.  No,  nothing  less  will  satisfy  him  than  that 
"  truths  not  thus  illustrated  are  generally  just  as  well  calculated  to 
convert  sinners  as  a  mathematical  demonstration."     Many  excel- 


144  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

lent  men,  who  have  no  taste  or  turn  for  this  illustrative  method  of 
preaching,  will  be  astonished  and  grieved  to  learn  that  to  deliver  a 
plain,  unvarnished  statement  of  scriptural  truth  to  their  congrega- 
tions, is  as  hopeless  a  means  of  doing  good,  as  to  prove  to  them 
that  two  sides  of  a  triangle  are  greater  than  the  third  side.  Again, 
Mr.  Finney  is  given  to  extemporaneous  preaching,  and  of  course 
this  is  not  merely  the  best,  it  is  the  onhj  way  of  preaching.  He 
can  find  no  resting  place  for  the  sole  of  his  foot  but  on  the  broad 
ground  that  "  we  never  can  have  the  full  meaning  of  the  gospel 
till  we  throw  away  our  notes."  We  do  not  like  forms  of  prayer, 
not  thinking  them  adapted  to  promote  the  spirit  of  prayer  ;  and  we 
shall  always  oppose  them,  unless  they  should  be  found  necessary 
to  protect  us  from  such  prayers  as  Mr.  Finney  is  in  the  habit  of 
offering.  But  we  can  by  no  means  agree  with  him  in  saying  that 
"forms  of  prayer  are  not  only  absurd  in  themselves,  but  they  are 
the  very  device  of  the  devil."  We  have  seen  many  a  pious  old 
lady,  when  she  had  finished  reading  a  portion  of  her  Bible,  placing 
a  piece  of  paper  or  a  string,  or  perchance  her  spectacles,  between 
the  leaves,  that  she  might  readily  open  to  the  place  again,  and  it 
certainly  never  occurred  to  us  that  this  custom  was  any  evidence 
of  want  of  piety.  But  Mr.  Finney  says  to  all  such,  "  The  fact  that 
you  fold  a  leaf  or  put  in  a  string  demonstrates  that  you  read  rather 
as  a  task  than  from  love  or  reverence  for  the  word  of  God."  Of 
the  prayers  of  pious  females,  who  have  assembled  by  themselves 
without  inviting  impenitent  sinners  to  be  present,  he  says,  "  such 
prayers  will  do  no  good — they  insult  God.^'  To  those  who  are  in 
the  habit  of  praying  with  submission  to  the  divine  will,  he  says, 
"  You  have  no  right  to  put  in  an  if,  and  say,  Lord,  if  it  be  thy  will, 
give  us  thy  Holy  Spirit ;  this  is  to  insult  God"  Mr.  Finney,  like 
all  other  fanatics,  makes  additions  of  his  own  to  the  scriptural  code 
of  morals.  Matthias  forbade  his  disciples  the  use  of  pork.  Mr. 
Finney  condemns  tea,  coflfee  and  tobacco,  evening  parties,  ribbons, 
and  many  other  things.  He  is  just  as  confident  in  supporting  his 
false  standard,  as  extravagant  too  in  denouncing  those  who  trans- 
gress it,  and  in  launching  against  them  the  thunderbolts  of  divine 
vengeance,  as  if  it  had  been  communicated  to  him  by  express  reve- 
lation. He  says,  "if  you  are  not  doing  these  things" — among 
which  he  has  enumerated  the  disuse  of  tea,  coffee  and  tobacco — 
"  and  if  your  soul  is  not  agonized  for  the  poor,  benighted  heathen, 
why  are  you  such  a  hypocrite  as  to  pretend  to  be  a  Christian? 
Why,  your  profession  is  an  insult  to  Jesus  Christ."  Again,  he  says, 
"Perhaps  he  is  looking  upon  it  (the  use  of  tobacco)  as  a  small  sin," 
and  he  then  proceeds  to  prove  that  the  sin  is  as  gross  as  a  mer- 
chant's clerk  would  commit  in  robbing  the  money  drawer.  He 
lifts  up  his  hands  in  astonishment  at  an  agent  who  is  in  the  city 
soliciting  funds  for  some  charitable  purpose,  and  actually  uses 
all  three  of  these  abominations  ;  and  he  enters  his  protest  against 
the  Home  Missionary  Society  for  aiding  churches  in  which  the 
members  use  tea,  coffee,  or  tobacco.    Again,  speaking  of  the  minis- 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 


145 


try  as  refusing  to  give  up  the  use  of  coffee,  he  cries  out,  "  Is  this 
Christianity  ?  What  business  have  you  to  use  Christ's  money  for 
such  a  purpose  ?"  Matthias  surely  could  not  have  raved  in  better 
style  over  a  delinquent  caught  in  the  horrible  act  of  eating  a  piece 
of  pork.  Of  evening  parties,  even  when  none  but "  Christian  friends 
are  invited,  so  as  to  have  it  a  religious  party,"  he  says,  "  this  is  the 
grand  device  of  the  devil."  These  social  assemblies  are  often  con- 
cluded with  prayer : — "  now  this,"  he  says,  "  I  regard  as  one  of  the 
worst  features  about  them."  When  there  is  to  be  a  circle  of  such 
parties  in  a  congregation  he  advises  them  "  to  dismiss  their  minister 
and  let  him  go  and  preach  where  the  people  would  be  ready  to 
receive  the  word  and  profit  by  it,  and  not  have  him  stay  and  be 
distressed,  and  grieved,  and  killed,  by  attempting  to  promote  reli- 
gion among  them  while  they  are  engaged  heart  and  hand  in  the 
service  of  the  devil.''  To  the  young  lady  who  wears  "  a  gaudy 
ribbon  and  ornaments  upon  her  dress,"  he  cries,  *'  Take  care.  You 
might  just  as  well  write  on  your  clothes.  No  truth  in  religion." 
And  over  this  fondness  for  dress,  tight-lacing,  &c.,  he  says,  "  Hea- 
ven puts  on  the  robes  of  mourning,  and  hell  may  hold  a  jubilee." 
The  man  who  stands  aloof  from  the  temperance  cause  has  '*  his 
hands  all  over  red  with  blood" — he  who  drinks  cider,  beer,  or  any- 
thing else,  until  "  you  can  smell  his  breath,"  is  a  drunkard, — and  no 
slave  holder  *'can  be  a  fit  subject  for  Christian  communion  and  fel- 
Jowship."  We  had  marked  some  twenty  other  passages,  many  of 
them  worse  than  any  we  have  given,  but  we  suppose  enough  has 
been  furnished  to  satisfy  our  readers  of  Mr.  Finney's  extravagance. 
We  turn,  then,  to  his  spiritual  pride  and  arrogance.  We  have 
not  been  able  to  find  one  sentence  in  his-book  which  wears  the  sem- 
blance of  humility.  But  there  is  arrogance  and  assumption  beyond 
anything  which  it  has  ever  been  our  fortune  previously  to  encoun- 
ter. Such  a  swelling,  strutting  consciousness  of  selt-importan  \q 
looks  forth  from  almost  every  page,  that  we  have  been  com- 
pelled again  and  again  to  turn  from  it,  not  in  anger  but  in  pity. 
Any  one  who  should  read  his  book  and  believe  it,  would  be  led  to 
suppose  that  until  he  came  forth  in  the  plenitude  of  his  wisdom 
and  goodness  to  instruct  mankind,  all  had  been  darkness.  The 
Bible  had  been  misunderstood,  and  its  doctrin-'S  perverted  :  min- 
isters had  been  preaching  "  an  endless  train  of  fooleries  ;"  the 
pulpit  had  never  "  grappled  with  mind  ;"  "  very  little  common 
sense  had  been  exercised  about  prayer  meetings  ;"  everything  had 
been  managed  in  the  most  ignorant  and  bungling  way.  But  he 
comes  and  all  things  are  set  right,  or  at  least  would  be,  if  his 
measures  were  not  opposed.  All  the  wise  and  good,  however, 
fully  agree  with  him.  We  encounter  this  arrogant  and  exclusive 
spirit  at  the  very  outset.  In  his  preface  he  says,  "  But  whatever 
may  be  the  result  of  saying  the  truth  as  it  respacts  some,  I  have 
reason  to  believe  that  the  great  body  of  praying  people  will 
receive  and  be  benefited  by  what  I  have  said."  Speaking,  in  one 
of  his  Lectures,  of  '*  ministers,    who  by  their  hves  and  preach- 

10 


146  ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

ing  give  evidence  to  the  church,  that  their  object  is  to  do  good 
and  win  souls  to  Christ,"  he  says,  "  This  class  of  ministers  vi^ill 
recognise  the  truth  of  all  that  I  have  said  or  wish  to  say."  In 
the  lull  magnitude  of  a  self-constituted  bishop  of  all  the  churches, 
fully  entitled  by  his  superior  wisdom  to  rebuke  with  authority 
all  other  ministers,  he  exclaims  in  another  place,  "  I  will  never 
spare  ministers  from  the  naked  truth."  "  If  the  whole  church,'* 
he  says,  "  as  a  body  had  gone  to  work  ten  years  ago,  and  con- 
tinued it,  as  a  few  individualsj  whom  I  could  name,  have  done, 
there  would  not  now  be  an  impenitent  sinner  in  the  land."  The 
greatest  appearance  of  modest  humility  which  we  have  seen  in 
him,  is  his  refusing,  on  this  occasion,  to  name  himself  at  the  head 
of  the  "  few  individuals."  He  claims,  in  no  guarded  terms,  the 
exclusive  approbation  of  God  for  his  doctrines  and  measures. 
"  They"  (the  church)  "  see  that  the  blessing  of  God  is  with  those 
that  are  thus  accused  of  new  measures  and  innovation.**  Desirous 
as  he  is  to  monopolize  the  favour  of  Heaven,  we  do  not  wonder  at 
finding  him,  in  another  place,  declaring,  with  great  nawete,  "  I  have 
been  pained  to  see  that  some  men,  in  giving  accounts  of  revivals, 
have  evidently  felt  themselves  obliged  to  be  particular  in  detail- 
ing the  measures  used,  to  avoid  the  inference  that  new  measures 
were  introduced."  And  if  the  accounts  of  all  the  revivals  that 
have  occurred  without  any  help  from  the  new  measures,  were  as 
much  noised  abroad  as  those  aided  by  them  have  been,  he  would 
be  still  more  "pained"  by  the  more  abundant  evidence  that  the' 
symbol  of  the  Divine  presence  does  not  shine  exclusively  upon  his 
camp.  In  presenting  to  his  hearers  "  the  consequences  of  not 
being  filled  with  the  Spirit,"  he  says  to  them,  "  You  will  be  much 
troubled  with  fears  about  fanaticism — you  will  be  much  disturbed 
by  the  measures  that  are  used  in  revivals  ;  if  any  measures  are 
adopted  that  are  decided  and  direct,  you  will  think  they  are  all 
new,  and  will  be  stumbled  at  them  just  in  proportion  to  your  want 
of  spirituality :  you  will  stand  and  cavil  at  them,  because  you  are 
so  blind  as  not  to  see  their  adapted ness,  while  all  heaven  is 
rejoicing  in  them."  Again,  of  those  that  are  opposed  to  *•  new  mea- 
sures," to  ''  this  new-light  preaching,"  and  to  "  these  evangelists 
who  go  about  the  country  preaching,"  he  says,  ''Such  men  will 
sleep  on  till  they  are  awakened  by  the  judgment  trumpet,  without 
any  revival,  unless  they  are  willing  that  God  should  come  in  his 
own  way."  This  fanatical  claim  to  the  exclusive  favour  of  God, 
this  arrogant  identification  of  all  his  opinions  and  measures  with 
the  Divine  will,  is  very  frequently  put  forth.  After  having  proved 
that  his  system  has  been  greatly  prospered,  that  it  has  been  suc- 
cessful beyond  anything  the  world  had  yet  seen,  he  says,  "  If  a 
measure  is  continually  and  usually  blessed,  let  the  man  who  thinks 
he  is  wiser  than  God  call  it  in  question — take  care  how  you  find 
fault  with  God"  Of  the  Cedar-street  church,  in  New  York,  which 
had  taken  a  decided  stand  against  the  new  divinity  and  new  mea- 
sures, or,  as  Mr.  Finney  states  it,  had  pursued  a  course  "  calculated 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  147 

to  excite  an  unreasonable  and  groundless  suspicion  against  many 
ministers  who  are  labouring  successfully  to  promote  revivals,"  he 
says,  "  They  may  pretend  to  be  mighty  pious,  and  jealous  for  the 
honour  of  God,  but  God  will  not  believe  they  are  sincere."  Of 
this  same  church  he  afterwards  says,  in  allusion  to  their  requiring 
an  assent  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  from  all  applicants  for  admis- 
sion to  the  Lord's  Supper,  a  step  which  would  exclude  his  con- 
verts, unless  their  consciences  should  be  as  elastic  as  their  teacher's, 
"  No  doubt  Jesus  Christ  is  angry  with  such  a  church,  and  he  will 
show  his  displeasure  in  a  way  that  admits  of  no  mistake,  if 
they  do  not  repent."  In  the  prospect  of  a  rupture  with  France, 
he  tells  his  people,  "  No  doubt" — it  will  be  observed  that  he 
never  has  any  doubt  about  the  divine  feelings,  when  his  measures 
are  in  question — "  No  doubt  God  is  holding  the  rod  of  war  over 
this  nation  ;  the  nation  is  under  His  displeasure,  because  the 
church  has  conducted  in  such  a  manner  with  respect  to  revivals." 
The  "  dear  fathers,"  who  have  the  training  of  our  young  men  for 
the  ministry,  he  thinks  unfit  for  their  office,  and  in  this  opinion  he 
is  perfectly  confident  that  he  has  "  the  mind  of  the  Lord." 
"  Those  dear  fathers,"  he  says,  **  will  not,  I  suppose,  see  this  ;  and 
will  perhaps  think  hard  of  me  for  saying  it ;  but  it  is  the  cause  of 
Christ''  But  we  have  given  specimens  enough  of  this  offensive 
self-glorification. 

In  close  connexion  with  this  trait  stands  his  censoriousness. 
The  passages  we  have  already  adduced,  for  other  purposes,  so  far 
illustrate  this  disposition,  that  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  produce 
many  in  addition.  Of  those  who  have  circulated  what  he  calls 
"slanderous  reports  of  revival  men  and  measures,"  he  says,  "It 
is  impossible,  from  the  very  laws  of  their  mind,  that  they  should 
engage  in  this  work  of  death,  this  mischief  of  hell,  if  they  truly 
loved  the  cause  of  Christ."  "  Hell"  is  with  him  nothing  more  nor 
less  than  the  state  prison  of  his  system,  to  which  ail  are  condemned 
who  dissent  or  doubt.  Again  he  says,  "  No  doubt  the  devil 
laughs,  if  they  can  laugh  in  hell,  to  hear  a  man  pretend  to  be  very 
much  engaged  in  religion,  and  a  great  lover  of  revivals,  and  yet 
all  the  while  on  the  look-out  for  fear  some  new  measures  should 
be  introduced."  And  of  prayers  which  ask  "  that  sinners  may 
have  more  conviction,"  or  "  that  sinners  may  go  home,  solemn  and 
tender,  and  take  the  subject  into  consideration,"  he  says,  "  All  such 
prayers  are  just  such  prayers  as  the  devil  wants."  This  is  but  a 
common  and  very  vulgar  method  of  cursing.  It  contains  no 
argument.  It  would  be  very  easy  for  his  opponents  to  reply,  that 
the  devil  is  thus  exclusively  busy  among  the  adversaries  to  the 
new  opinions  and  measures,  because  he  is  aware  that  among  their 
friends  his  work  is  well  enough  done  without  him.  And  the  argu- 
ment would  be  as  good  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  Mr.  Fin- 
ney has  some  mystical  notions  respecting  the  "prayer  of  faith," — 
notions  in  which  none,  we  believe,  out  of  his  own  coterie  agree 


148 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 


with  him.*  But  here  as  elsewhere,  he  condemns  without  mercy 
all  dissentients.  Having  spoken  of  a  public  examination  at  a  theo- 
logical seminary,  in  the  course  of  which  his  peculiar  opinions  on 
this  subject  were  controverted,  he  says,  "  Now,  to  teach  such  sen- 
timents as  these,  is  to  trifle  with  the  word  of  God."  And  he 
declares,  that  all  persons  who  have  not  known  by  experience  the 
truth  of  his  enthusiastic  views  of  this  matter,  "  have  great  reason 
to  doubt  their  piety,"  and  adds,  "  this  is  by  no  means  uncharitable." 
Everything  which  has,  at  any  time,  or  in  any  quarter  of  the  land, 
been  said  or  done  that  seems  adapted  to  operate  to  the  prejudice 
of  his  measures,  is  dragged  into  the  pulpit,  and  made  the  occasion 
of  denunciation  against  the  transgressors.  "  Some  young  men  in 
Princeton  came  out  a  few  years  ago  with  an  essay  on  the  evils  of 
revivals."  We  cannot  see  what  necessity  there  was  for  Mr.  Fin- 
ney to  tell  the  people  of  Chatham-street  Chapel,  that  the  young 
men  in  Princeton,  some  years  before,  had  published  their  opposi- 
tion to  the  new  measures.  But  he  does  tell  them,  and  adds,  "  I 
should  like  to  know  how  many  of  those  young  men  have  enjoyed 
revivals  among  their  people,  since  they  have  been  in  the  ministry  ; 
and  if  any  have,  I  should  like  to  know  whether  they  have  not 
repented  of  that  piece  about  the  evils  of  revivals?"  We  can 
inform  Mr.  Finney,  that  that  ".piece"  affords  "no  place  for  repent- 
ance," though  it  should  be  sought  "  carefully  with  tears."  He  tells 
his  people  again,  that  "  one  of  the  professors  in  a  Presbyterian 
theological  seminary  felt  it  his  duty  to  WTite  a  series  of  letters  to 
Presbyterians,  which  were  extensively  circulated ;"  and  in  these 
letters  the  new^  measures  were  condemned.  This  incident  is  made 
the  occasion  of  a  tirade,  in  the  course  of  which  he  breaks  out  with 
the  exclamation,  it  is  a  "  shame  and  a^*?i  that  theological  professors, 
•who  preach  but  seldom,  who  are  withdrawn  from  the  active  duties 
of  the  ministry,  should  sit  in  their  studies,  and  write  their  letters, 
advisory  or  dictatorial,  to  ministers  and  churches  who  are  in  the 
•field,  and  who  are  in  circumstances  to  judge  what  needs  to  be  done." 
And  he  says  it  is  "  dangerous  and  ridiculous  for  our  theological 
professors,  who  are  withdrawn  from  the  field  of  combat,  to  be 
allowed  to  dictate  in  regard  to  the  measures  and  movements  of  the 
church."  We  shall  see  whether  his  theological  professorship  will 
put  a  bridle  on  his  tongue.  It  will  be  seen  that  no  venerableness 
of  years  or  wisdom  or  Christian  excellence  can  turn  aside  the  ful- 
minations  of  his  displeasure.  To  disapprove  of  his  measures,  no 
matter  with  what  otherwise  excellent  qualities  this  disapproval  may 
be  associated,  is  to  give  decisive  evidence  of  wickedness,  and  not 

*  It  was  our  purpose,  had  our  limits  permitted,  to  notice  at  length  his  wild  opi- 
nions on  this  subject.  We  the  less  regret  the  necessary  exclusion  of  our  intended 
remarks  on  this  topic,  as  we  are  able  to  refer  the  reader  to  a  very  excellent  discus- 
sion of  it,  in  two  Lectures,  lately  published,  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Richards,  of  the 
Auburn  Seminary,  Since  the  publication  of  these  Lectures,  Mr.  Finney  no  doubt 
has  another  argument  for  proving  that  this  venerable  servant  of  Christ  is  not  "  such 
a  man  as  is  needed  for  training  our  young  ministers  in  these  days  of  excitement  and 
taction," 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  149 

only  to  offend  him,  but  to  insult  God.  Nor  is  he  ever  startled  by 
the  number  of  his  victims.  All,  v^'hether  a  few  individuals  or  a 
whole  church,  who  will  not  fall  down  and  worship  the  golden 
image  which  he  has  set  up,  are  doomed  to  the  fiery  furnace.  The 
General  Assembly,  a  few  years  since,  issued  a  Pastoral  Letter,  in 
which  the  new  measures  were  condemned.  But  neither  Mr.  Fin- 
ney's modesty  nor  his  tenderness  is  at  all  troubled  by  the  array  of 
the  whole  church  against  him.  When  he  saw  their  pastoral  letter 
he  says,  "My  soul  was  sick,  an  unutterable  feeling  of  distress  came 
over  my  mind,  and  I  felt  that  God  would  visit  the  Presbyterian 
church  for  conduct  like  this."  How  to  the  very  life  is  the  fanati- 
cism of  this  sentence, — this  turning  from  general  opposition  to 
solace  and  strengthen  himself  in  the  singular  prerogative  which  he 
enjoys  of  a  back-door  entrance  into  the  court  of  Heaven,  and  of 
unquestioned  access  to  its  magazines  of  wrath.  In  a  like  spirit  he 
says  of  the  "Act  and  Testimony  warfare,"  that  "  the  blood  of  mil- 
lions who  will  go  to  hell  before  the  church  will  get  over  the  shock, 
will  be  found  in  the  skirts  of  the  men  who  have  got  up  and  carried 
on  this  dreadful  contention."  And  of  the  General  Assembly,  that 
"  No  doubt  there  is  a  jubilee  in  hell  every  year  about  the  time  of 
meeting  of  the  General  Assembly."  Of  all  ministers,  be  they 
few  or  many,  "  who  will  not  turn  out  of  their  tracks  to  do  anything 
new"  he  says,  "  they  will  grieve  the  Holy  Spirit  away,  and  God 
will  visit  them  with  his  curse."  At  the  close  of  these  extracts,  for 
we  must  put  a  period  to  them  from  other  causes  than  lack  of  ma- 
terials to  furnish  more  like  them,  we  would  ask,  was  there  ever  a 
fanatic  who  was  more  intelligible  in  his  claim  to  a  close  relation- 
ship of  his  own  with  the  Most  High,  or  more  indiscriminate  and 
wholesale  in  his  condemnation  of  those  who  refused  submission  to 
his  peculiar  dogmas  ?  Was  there  ever  a  Dominic  who  was  more 
exclusive  or  more  fierce  ? 

There  remains  one  more  feature  of  Mr.  Finney's  spirit  to  be 
noticed,  his  irreverence  and  profaneness.  This  is  atopic  which  we 
would  gladly  have  avoided.  It  is  painful  to  us  to  contemplate  this 
trait  of  character,  and  we  would  not  willingly  shock  the  minds  of 
others,  as  we  have  been  shocked  by  some  of  the  passages  which 
we  must  quote  under  this  head.  But  it  is  necessary  to  a  correct 
understanding  of  the  spirit  of  the  new  measures,  that  this  feature 
should  be  exhibited.  It  has  been  seen  all  along  that  Mr.  Finney's 
theology  is  not  a  barren  vine,  and  we  trust  it  has  at  the  same  time 
been  seen,  that  its  fruit  is  the  grapes  of  Sodom  and  the  clusters  of 
Gomorrah.  We  will  now  show  what  are  the  practical  results  of 
his  theory  of  the  divine  government ;  though  for  reasons  just  hint- 
ed, we  shall  give  no  more  illustrations  under  this  allegation  than 
are  necessary  distinctly  to  sustain  it.  In  urging  the  necessity  of 
new  measures  to  the  production  of  revivals,  he  says,  "  Perhaps  it 
is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  it  is  impossible  for  God  himself  to 
bring  about  reformations  but  by  new  measures."  Here  we  might 
pause,  for  the  man  who  is  capable  of  uttering  such  a  sentence  as 


150  ON   REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION. 

this,  is  capable  of  almost  any  degree  of  profaneness.  But  lest  it 
might  be  urged  that  this  may  be  a  solitary  instance  of  unpremedi- 
tated rashness,  we  must  furnish  a  few^  more.  He  says  of  a  certain 
class  of  people  that  "  they  seem  determined  to  leave  it  to  God 
alone  to  convert  the  world,  and  say,  If  he  wants  the  world  con- 
verted let  him  do  it.  They  ought  to  know,"  he  continues,  "  that 
this  is  impossible :  so  far  as  we  know,  neither  God  nor  man  can 
convert  the  world  without  the  co-operation  of  the  church."  Again, 
when  speaking  of  the  duties  of  church  members  "  in  regard  to 
politics,"  he  says,  "  God  cannot  sustain  this  free  and  blessed  coun- 
try, which  we  love  and  pray  for,  unless  the  church  will  take  right 
ground."  In  rebuking  those  who  do  not  "  exhibit  their  light,"  he 
tells  them,  "  God  will  not  take  the  ti^ouhle  to  keep  a  light  burning 
that  is  hid."  To  cast  ridicule  upon  a  certain  kind  of  prayers,  he 
says,  that  they  who  offer  them  pray  in  such  a  manner,  that  "  every- 
body wishes  them  to  stop,  and  God  wishes  so  too,  undoubtedly." 
And  in  reference  to  the  subscribers  to  the  New  York  Evangelist, 
who  have  neglected  to  pay  in  their  dues,  he  says,  "  Why,  it  would 
he  disgraceful  to  God  to  dwell  and  have  communion  with  such  per- 
sons." We  will  close  these  extracts  with  two  passages  of  a  still 
more  extraordinary  character.  Speaking  of  the  Saviour,  he  says, 
**  He  icas  afraid  he  should  die  in  the  garden  before  he  came 
to  the  cross."  And  yet  again,  and  more  astounding  still,  he 
says  "  Jesus  Christ  when  he  was  praying  in  the  garden,  was  in 
such  an  agony  that  he  sweat  as  it  were  great  drops  of  blood,  falling 
down  to  the  ground  ; — I  have  never  known  a  person  sweat  blood, 
hwi  I  have  known  a  person  pray  till  the  blood  started  from  the  nose^* !  ! 
Who  that  has  ever  dwelt  in  holy  contemplation  over  the  sacred 
mysteries  of  his  Saviour's  sufferings,  does  not  feel  indignant  at  this 
unhallowed,  vulgar  profanation  of  them  ?  And  what  extremes 
can  appal  the  mind  that  could  perpetrate  this  without  shrinking  ? 

Let  it  be  noted  that  the  spirit  which  we  have  here  pictured,  is 
not  the  spirit  of  Mr.  Finney  alone.  Had  it  belonged  to  the  man, 
we  should  not  have  troubled  ourselves  to  exhibit  it.  But  it  is  the 
spirit  of  the  system,  and  therefore  deserves  our  careful  notice. 
And  it  is  seen  to  be,  as  Dr.  Beecher  called  it  eight  years  ago,  "  a 
spirit  of  fanaticism,  of  spiritual  pride,  censoriousness,  and  insubor- 
dination to  the  order  of  the  Gospel."*  It  is  prurient,  bustling  and 
revolutionary — harsh,  intolerant  and  vindictive.  Can  the  tree 
which  produces  such  frnit  be  good  ?  The  system  from  which  it 
springs  is  bad  in  all  its  parts,  root,  trunk,  branches,  and  fruit.  The 
speculative  error  of  its  theology  and  religion  is  concrete  in  its 
measures  and  spirit.  Let  it  prevail  through  the  church,  and  the 
very  name  revival  will  be  a  by-word  and  a  hissing.  Already  has 
it  produced,  we  fear,  to  some  extent  this  deplorable  result.  Such 
have  already  been  its  effects,  that  there  can  be  no  doubt,  if  it  should 
affect  still  larger  masses,  and  be  relieved  from  the  opposing  influ- 

•  See  Dr.  Beecher's  Letter  in  the  pamphlet  on  New  Measures,  before  referred  to. 


ON    REVIVALS    OF    RELIGION.  151 

ences  which  have  somew^hat  restrained  its  outbreakings,  it  will 
spread  desolation  and  ruin,  and  ages  yet  to  come  will  deplore  the 
waste  of  God's  heritage.  To  the  firm  opposition  of  the  friends  of 
truth,  in  reliance  upon  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church,  and  prayer 
for  His  blessing,  we  look  for  protection  from  such  disaster. 

We  have  spoken  our  minds  plainly  on  this  subject.  We  intended 
from  the  beginning  not  to  be  misunderstood.  It  is  high  time  that 
all  the  friends  of  pure  doctrine  and  of  decent  order,  in  the  house  of 
God,  should  speak  plainly.  Mr.  Finney  was  kindly  and  tenderly 
expostulated  with  at  the  commencement  of  his  career.  Mr.  Nettle- 
ton,  than  whom  no  one  Hving  was  better  quahfied  or  entitled  to 
give  counsel  on  this  subject,  discharged  fully  his  duty  towards  him. 
Others  did  the  same.  But  their  advice  was  spurned,  their  coun- 
sels were  disregarded.  To  envy  or  blindness  did  he  impute  their 
doubts  of  the  propriety  of  his  course.  He  had  a  light  of  his  own, 
and  by  it  "  he  saw  a  hand  they  could  not  see."  All  the  known 
means  of  kindness  and  expostulation  have  been  tried  to  induce  him 
to  abandon  his  peculiarities,  but  without  success.  It  is  the  clear 
duty  of  the  Church  now  to  meet  him  and  his  co-reformers  with 
open  and  firm  opposition.  Let  us  not  be  deluded  with  the  idea 
that  opposition  will  exasperate  and  do  harm.  Under  cover  of  the 
silence  and  inaction  which  this  fear  has  already  produced,  this 
fanaticism  has  spread,  until  now  twelve  thousand  copies  of  such  a 
work  as  these  Lectures  on  Revivals  are  called  for  by  its  cravings. 
And  there  is  danger  that  this  spirit  will  spread  still  more  exten- 
sively. The  elements  of  fanaticism  exist  in  the  breast  of  every 
community,  and  may  be  easily  called  into  action  by  causes  which 
we  might  be  disposed  to  overlook  as  contemptible. 

We  conclude  this  article,  as  we  did  our  former,  by  pointing  out 
to  Mr.  Finney  his  duty  to  leave  our  church.  It  is  an  instructive 
illustration  of  the  fact  that  fanaticism  debilitates  the  conscience, 
that  this  man  can  doubt  the  piety  of  any  one  who  uses  coflTee  ;  and 
call  him  a  cheat,  who  sends  a  letter  to  another  on  his  own  business, 
without  paying  the  postage ;  while  he  remains,  apparently  without 
remorse,  with  the  sin  of  broken  vows  upon  him.  In  this  position 
we  leave  him  before  the  public.  Nor  will  we  vi^ithdraw  our 
charges  against  him  until  he  goes  out  from  among  us,  for  he  i*- 
not  of  us. 


ESSAY    VI, 


DR.    BEECHER'S    THEOLOGY.* 


This  work  had  its  origin  in  the  prosecution  of  Dr.  Beecher  upon 
charges  of  heresy,  before  the  presbytery,  and  subsequently  before 
the  synod  of  Cincinnati.  By  both  these  bodies  he  was  acquitted ; 
but  the  synod  at  the  same  time  requested  him  to  pubHsh,  at  as  early 
a  day  as  possible,  •'  a  concise  statement  of  the  argument  and  design 
of  his  sermon  on  native  depravity,  and  of  his  views  of  total 
depravity,  original  sin,  and  regeneration,  agreeably  to  his  declara- 
tion and  explanation  before  the  synod."  In  compliance  with  this 
request.  Dr.  Beecher  published  his  Views  in  Theology,  which  is  an 
enlarged  and  illustrated  edition  of  the  defence  made  upon  his  trial. 
The  opinions  of  a  man  so  eminent  in  abilities  and  in  station  would 
be  matter  of  public  interest,  independent  of  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances which  in  this  case  imparted  to  them  additional  importance ; 
and  we  intended,  therefore,  at  the  time  when  his  work  appeared, 
to  make  it  the  subject  of  examination  and  remark.  But  this  pur- 
pose was  then  laid  aside,  for  reasons  with  which  it  is  not  necessary 
to  trouble  the  public  ;  and  it  is  now  resumed,  because  recent  events 
and  discussions  have  again  broken  the  silence  which  had  begun  to 
prevail  in  relation  to  Dr.  Beecher  and  his  opinions,  and  rendered  it 
important  to  ascertain  how  much  ground  he  has  really  given  for 
the  doubts  and  suspicions  which  many  seem  to  entertain.  We  have 
therefore  recurred  to  his  Views  in  Theology,  in  contrast  with  his 
other  publications,  and  the  result  of  this  comparison  we  are  about 
to  lay  before  our  readers. 

We  cannot  sympathize  with  Dr.  Beecher  in  the  complaints  which 
he  makes  that  he  should  be  called  upon  to  defend  his  orthodoxy 
before  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal.  He  speaks  of  "  the  necessity  of 
explanation  imposed  on  him  by  unfounded  accusations ;"  and  com- 
pares himself  with  "  an  aged  merchant  of  long-established  reputa- 
tion called  upon  to  prove  his  honesty  by  the  exhibition  of  his  books  ; 
or  a  physician  of  age  and  experience  to  repel  the  suspicion  of 
quackery  by  publishing  an  account  of  his  cases  and  his  practice." 

•  Originally  published  in  1837,  in  review  of  "  View.«  in  Theology,"  by  Lyman 
Beecher,  D.D.,  President  of  Lane  Theological  Seminary. 


153 

We  must  be  permitted  to  say,  without  intending  any  disrespect 
to  Dr.  Beecher,  that  his  comparisons  seem  to  us  very  inapposite. 
In  his  analogous  cases  of  hardship,  the  merchant  and  physician  are 
called  upon  to  prove  that  they  possess  quahties  which  the  public 
estimation,  founded  on  long  observance  of  their  conduct,  has 
assigned  to  them.  But  we  are  not  aware  that  Dr.  Beecher  has 
ever  enjoyed  the  reputation  of  possessing  views  of  theological 
truth  that  were  profound,  well-defined,  and  carefully  adjusted  to 
the  standards  of  Presbyterian  orthodoxy.  A  reputation  he  has 
indeed  had,  and  well  has  he  earned  it,  of  a  man  of  commanding 
intellect,  of  comprehensive  grasp  of  mind,  capable  of  seizing  upon 
the  great  features  of  any  subject  and  holding  them  up,  covered 
with  light,  to  the  view  of  others.  The  reputation,  too,  he  has  had 
of  a  zealous  and  successful  preacher  of  the  gospel.  And  who  has 
called  in  question  his  substantial  merit  in  any  of  these  respects  ? 
Had  he  been  arraigned  for  weakness  of  intellect,  or  accused  in 
relation  to  any  of  the  matters  upon  which  his  public  reputation 
rests,  we  would  have  been  ready  to  make  common  cause  with  him, 
and  lift  up  our  voices  higher  even  than  his  own,  in  outcry  upon  the 
injustice  and  cruelty  of  the  accusation.  But  no  such  charge  has 
been  made  :  no  one  within  our  knowledge  has  sought  to  detract 
aught  from  the  reputation  which  Dr.  Beecher  has  acquired  ;  or  so 
far  questioned  the  justice  of  the  public  award  on  his  behalf,  as  to 
call  upon  him  now  at  an  advanced  stage  of  life  to  prove  that  he  is 
entitled  to  it.  His  prosecution  touched  upon  matters  entirely 
distinct  from  those  excellences  which  public  estimation  has 
assigned  to  him.  So  far  was  Dr.  Beecher's  reputation  for  ortho- 
doxy from  being  extensively  and  firmly  established,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  merchant  or  physician  which  he  brings  forward,  that,  before 
he  left  New  England,  many  were  the  doubts  and  fears  entertained 
of  him  in  this  respect  among  those  who  had  the  best  opportunities 
for  ascertaining  his  opinions.  If  the  accusations  against  him  are 
so  utterly  groundless,  if  his  defence  of  his  orthodoxy  be  a  mere 
gratuity,  forced  from  him  only  by  the  unreasonable  prejudices  of 
others,  it  surely  becomes  him  to  explain  the  remarkable  fact  that 
he  should  have  been  so  grievously  misunderstood,  not  only  by  Dr. 
Wilson,  but  by  Dr.  Porter  of  Andover,  and  by  many  others  in 
New  England,  who  must  be  supposed  capable  of  understanding 
even  tlie  subtlest  discussions  in  theology,  and  who  were  under  no 
bias  save  one  that  would  dispose  them  to  judge  favourably  of  Dr. 
Beecher.  The  Doctor's  writings  are  not  ordinarily  marked  by 
obscurity.  On  the  contrary,  we  do  not  know  any  writer  who,  in 
general,  seizes  more  directly  or  illuminates  more  strongly  any 
subject  which  he  undertakes  to  discuss.  Why  is  it  then  that  the 
soundness  of  his  views  on  the  subjects  of  original  sin,  depravity, 
and  regeneration,  were  called  in  question  before  he  lelt  New 
England  by  many  of  his  brethren  who  were  most  intimately 
associated  with  him  ?  Had  these  doubts  of  his  orthodoxy  arisen  in 
some  remote  region,  they  might  be  supposed  to  have  proceeded 


154  DR. 

from  the  misconstruction  of  some  isolated  passage  in  his  writings, 
or  from  the  erroneous  reports  of  others  upon  his  opinions.     If  the 
ignorant  only  had  entertained  them,  we  might  suppose  that  they 
had  been  merely  alarmed  by  some  new  phraseology  in  which  Dr. 
Beecher  was  preaching  familiar  truths  ;  or  had  they  been  found 
only  among  his  enemies,  we  might  conclude  that  prejudice  had  led 
them  to  torture  his  words  into  an  unfavourable  meaning.     But 
these  misgivings  had  their  origin  in  the  sphere  within  which  he 
lived  and  laboured  ;  among  those  who  were  most  familiar  with  his 
writings,  and  sermons,  and  conversation  ;  among  men  who,  having 
been  trained  to  theological  investigation,  would  not  be  likely  to 
mistake  an  old  truth  merely  because  it  was  presented  in  anew  dress; 
and  among  men,  too,  who  had  been  accustomed  to  respect  and  love 
Dr.  Beecher,  and  whose  minds  would  be  slow,  therefore,  in  taking 
up  any  opinion  to  his  hurt.     If  he  was  misunderstood  at  the  west 
because  his  brethren  there  were  not  able  to  draw  the  distinction, 
of  which  he  is  so  fond,  between  a  theological  doctrine  and  the 
philosophy  of  that  doctrine,  why  was  he  misunderstood  in  New 
England  ?     He  surely  will  not  deny  that  there  are  men  there,  and 
men,  too,  among  those  who  have  questioned  or  doubted  his  ortho- 
doxy, who  can  dive  with  him  into  any  of  the  depths  of  philosophy, 
or  ascend  with  him,  pari  passu,  to  any  of  its  heights.     Until  Dr. 
Beecher  will  condescend  to  give  some  rational  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  these  doubts  of  his  orthodoxy  in  New  England,  and 
the  subsequent  and  independent  origin  of  similar  doubts  at  the 
west,  we  cannot  but  consider  his  complaint  of  "  unfounded  accu- 
sations" as  unbecoming  and  slanderous.     The  effect  of  this  com- 
plaint is  to  present  his  prosecutor   as   coming   forward,   in  the 
mere   gratuity   of    mischief,   to    interrupt    his    labours,    and    to 
distract   the  church   with  needless   controversy   and    litigation  ; 
and  it  throws  upon  all  who  have  expressed  their  doubts  of  his 
soundness,  the   odium  of  weakening   that  harmony   and   mutual 
confidence  which  ought  to  exist  between   ministers  of  the  same 
church.      We   cannot,    therefore,    suffer   the   assertion    that   the 
charges  against  him  were  groundless  to  pass  unchallenged.     We 
cannot  believe  that  so  many  men,  as  wise  and  good  as  Dr.  Beecher, 
would  permit  their  confidence  in  him  to  be  destroyed  or  weakened, 
unless  he  had  been  imprudent  enough  to  give  them  some  cause  for 
it.     And  we  are  persuaded  that  Dr.  Beecher  would  have  added 
to  his  reputation  if,  instead  of  bespeaking  in  a  tone  of  arrogant 
superiority  the  mercy  of  the  court  for  his  prosecutor,*  and  main- 
taining his  own  entire  blamelessness,  he  had  frankly  admitted,  at 
least,  that  he  had  made  use  on  some  occasions  of  incautious  and 
imprudent  phraseology  which  had  naturally  given  rise  to  misappre- 
hension of  his  views.     The  blame  of  the  interruption  of  ministerial 
confidence,  as  far  as  he  is  concerned,  would,  to  be  sure,  have  been 
fixed  upon  himself  by  this  avowal  ;  but  there  it  must  be   fixed, 
whether  he  be  willing  to  receive  it  or  not ;  there,  if  we  mistake 
*  See  Defence  before  the  Presbytery,  p.  80. 


156 

not,  public  estimation  has  already  fixed  it;  and  his  frank  assump- 
tion of  it  would  have  done  him  good  instead  of  harm. 

So  much  ground  has  Dr.  Beecher  really  given  for  misapprehen- 
sion of  his  theological  opinions,  that  it  is  no  easy  matter  even  now 
to  understand  what  he  really  believes.  If  we  had  only  his  Views 
in  Theology  to  consult,  we  could  readily  understand  him  ;  but 
when  we  compare  certain  statements  of  doctrine  in  this  work  with 
his  previous  writings  we  are  perplexed  beyond  measure.  We  find 
him  at  different  times  avowing  directly  contrary  opinions  on  the 
same  subject.  With  an  ordinary  man,  we  should  at  once  settle  this 
difficulty,  by  saying  that  he  had  doubtless  seen  good  reason  to 
change  his  opinions,  and  that  we  must  learn  what  his  present  sen- 
timents are  from  the  latest  publication  of  them.  But  Dr.  Beecher 
cuts  us  off*  from  this  explanation  in  his  own  case  by  assuring  us. 
"  that  his  doctrinal  views  have  been  unchanged  from  the  beginning," 
*'  that  he  is  in  doctrine  what  he  ever  was ;"  and  we  are  left  there- 
fore utterly  at  a  loss  in  our  conjectures,  whether  his  earlier  or  his 
later  writings  contain  the  true  exposition  of  his  present  views. 
There  are  statements  in  these  writings,  which  no  ingenuity  of 
explanation  can  reconcile — there  are  discrepances  which  no  sophis- 
try can  bridge  over — and  the  perception  of  these,  in  connexion  with 
his  declaration  that  he  has  never  changed  his  views,  has  involved 
us  in  bewilderment  and  doubt. 

That  we  may  not  be  accused  in  our  turn  of  bringing  forward 
"unfounded  accusations,"  and  thus  imposing  upon  Dr.  Beecher  the 
necessity  of  further  explanations,  we  will  proceed  to  adduce  evi- 
dence of  the  inconsistencies  and  contradictions  to  which  we  have 
alluded.  The  first  subject  discussed  in  his  Views  in  Theology  is 
Natural  Ability  ;  but  we  shall  pass  this  topic  for  the  present  and 
commence  with  the  more  important  one  of  Original  Sin.  This 
doctrine  is  universally  admitted  to  be  fundamental  to  the  Calvinis- 
tic  system.  He  who  denies  this  doctrine,  as  taught  in  our  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  and  in  the  writings  of  the  Reformers,  however  good  a 
Christian  he  may  be,  cannot  be  a  good  Calvinist ;  a  logical  neces- 
sity is  laid  upon  him  to  abandon  most  of  the  distinctive  peculiarities 
of  the  Calvinistic  system.  If  there  is  one  doctrine  which  lies  more 
broadly  than  any  other  at  the  base  of  this  system,  this  is  that  doc- 
trine ;  and  if  this  be  removed,  the  whole  structure  must  fall.  It 
might  naturally  be  supposed,  therefore,  that  every  professed  Cal- 
vinist would  have  his  opinions  on  this  subject  so  well  settled  and 
defined,  that  he  would  not  be  blown  about  by  every  wind  of  doc- 
trine, or,  when  discussing  it  at  different  times,  express  himself  in 
contradictory  terms.  The  Pelagian  and  Calvinistic  views  of  the 
effect  of  the  fall  of  man  upon  the  race,  are  so  luminously  distinct 
from  each  other,  and  they  touch,  too,  upon  so  many  points  of  the 
respective  systems  to  which  they  belong,  that  he  who  makes  it 
doubtful  which  of  these  views  is  his  own,  cannot  assuredly,  escape 
the  just  censure  of  paltering  in  a  double  sense,  save  under  the  plea 
of  incredible  ignorance.     How  far  any  of  these  remarks  apply  to 


156  DR.  beecher's  theology. 

the  case  before  us,  our  readers  will  judge  for  themselves,  after 
reading  the  extracts  which  we  are  about  to  adduce. 

We  will  first  exhibit  the  opinions  which  Dr.  Beecher  held  on 
the  subject  of  original  sin,  previous  to  his  impeachment  and  trial. 
In  his  second  lecture  on,  "  The  Causes  and  Remedy  of  Scepticism," 
we  find  the  following  passage  :  "  The  points  to  which  1  allude,  as 
violated  by  a  false  philosophy,  are  the  principles  of  personal 
identity,  by  which  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  distinct  from  or 
confounded  with  their  ancestor,  and  the  principles  of  personal 
accountability  and  desert  of  punishment,  as  men  are  made  account- 
able and  punished  for  his  conduct,  or  become  liable  to  misery  as 
a  universal  consequence.  The  nature  of  sin  and  holiness,  con- 
sidered as  material  qualities,  or  the  substance  of  the  soul,  or  as 
instincts,  or  as  the  spontaneous  action  of  mind  under  moral  govern- 
ment, in  the  full  possession  of  all  the  elements  of  accountability." 
It  is  very  evident  which  of  the  opposite  principles  here  stated,  the 
author  adopts  as  his  own.  Any  one  who  was  acquainted  with  the 
theological  controversies  on  this  subject,  would  be  led  to  suppose, 
in  reading  this  passage,  that  Dr.  Beecher  meant  to  condemn,  as 
false  philosophy,  the  opinion  that  men  are  in  any  sense  held  respon- 
sible for  the  sin  of  Adam,  or  punished  on  account  of  it,  and  to 
maintain  in  opposition  to  this  philosophic  dogma  of  the  dark  ages, 
that  all  the  sin  and  misery  which  men  suffer  is  merely  tlie  conse- 
quence of  Adam's  transgression.  Now  this  true  philosophy  of 
Dr.  Beecher  would  not  be  objected  to  by  most  Pelagians.  They 
would  admit  that  we  are  involved  in  misery  by  the  fall  of  Adam 
— one  main  hinge  upon  which  the  whole  controversy  turns,  is 
whether  this  misery  is  punitive  or  not  in  its  character.  But  pun- 
ishment for  Adam's  sin,  according  to  the  apparent  meaning  of  the 
above  extract,  is  a  figment  of  that  false  philosophy  which  has  been 
employed  for  the  exposition  of  the  Calvinistic  system,  and  which, 
in  Dr.  Beecher's  deliberate  opinion,  "has  done  more  to  obstruct 
the  march  of  Christianity,  and  to  paralyse  the  saving  power  of 
the  gospel,  and  to  raise  up  and  organize  around  the  church  the 
unnumbered  multitude,  to  behold;  and  wonder,  and  despise,  and 
perish,  than  all  other  causes  beside." 

In  the  other  sentence  of  the  passage  quoted,  the  false  philosophy 
of  the  nature  of  sin  and  holiness  is  that  which  considers  them  "  as 
material  qualities,  or  the  substance  of  the  soul,  or  as  instincts," 
and  he  admits  no  alternative  to  this  view,  save  that  which  restricts 
them  to  "the  spontaneous  action  of  mind  under  moral  government." 
This  is  the  very  language  of  the  New  Haven  school.  The  mode 
of  stating  the  question  leaves  us  in  about  as  much  doubt  as  to  the 
theology  of  the  writer,  as  we  should  feel  respecting  the  political 
opinions  of  one  who  should  assert  that  the  parties  to  the  contro- 
versy which  has  been  for  some  years  waged  in  our  country,  were 
the  people  on  the  one  side,  and  the  bank  monster  on  the  other. 
Whenever  we  see  a  statement  of  the  question  touching  the  nature 
of  sin  and  holiness,  which  assumes  that  there  is  no  intermediate 


DR.  beecher's  theology.  157 

ground  between  the  thoery  that  restricts  them  to  acts,  and  that 
which  supposes  them  to  be  physical  entities  infused  into  the  mind, 
or  created  instincts  of  the  soul,  we  are  at  no  loss  to  name  the 
banner  under  which  the  writer,  however  disguised,  is  doing  battle 
upon  the  theological  arena.  It  would  be  strange,  indeed,  if  a  Cal- 
vinist,  in  enumerating  the  true  and  false  theories  upon  this  subject, 
should  omit  the  only  one  which  is  consistent  with  the  doctrine  of 
our  standards  respecting  the  corrupt  and  sinful  nature  which  we 
inherit  from  our  fallen  parent ;  and  not  the  less  strange,  if  in  giving 
■what  he  intended  to  be  the  orthodox  account  of  this  matter,  he 
should  so  broadly  misrepresent  and  caricature  it,  as  to  make  it 
absurd  and  repulsive.  If  we  were  compelled  to  choose  between 
making  sin  a  material  property  or  adjunct  of  the  soul,  or  lirruting 
it  to  the  spontaneous  action  of  the  mind,  we  certamly  would  choose 
the  latter,  since  it  is  impossible  to  state  the  other  opinion  in  terms 
that  are  not  self-contradictory ;  but  we  would  choose  it  with  the 
distinct  understanding,  that  it  compelled  us  to  abandon  the  Calvin- 
istic  system.  It  is  not,  in  our  view,  more  absurd  to  hold  that  sin 
is  a  material  substance,  than  to  maintain  that  sin  is  confined  to  the 
spontaneous  action  of  the  mind,  and  in  connexion  with  this,  that 
man  inherits  a  sinful  nature.  The  first  proposition  is  absurd, 
because  there  is  an  essential  opposition  of  meaning  between  sin 
and  substance ;  the  other  two  in  their  conjunction,  are  no  less 
absurd,  because  a  nature  is  not  in  any  sense  an  act,  and  of  course, 
by  the  previous  definition,  cannot  be  sinful. 

Is  it  wonderful  then,  when  Dr.  Beecher  comes  forward,  lisping 
the  very  shibboleth  of  the  New  Haven  school,  teaching  that  all 
who  do  not  restrict  the  nature  of  sin  to  spontaneous  acts  of  the 
mind,  believe  in  physical  depravity,  that  he  should  be  considered 
as  having  abandoned  the  Calvinislic  doctrine  of  original  sin? 
Ought  he  to  complain  of  his  brethren  because  they  were  not  wil- 
ling to  charge  upon  him  the  monstrous  absurdity  of  believing  that 
a  nature  is  an  act,  and  may  therefore  be  sinful  f  And  what  shall 
be  thought  of  the  modesty  of  the  man,  who,  having  printed  such 
.  sentiments,  has  the  face  to  declare  to  the  world  that  the  accusations 
against  him  are  groundless  ;  and  in  the  plenitude  of  his  compassion, 
to  beg  the  court  before  which  he  is  tried,  that  they  will  not  punish 
his  prosecutor  as  a  slanderer? 

Our  next  extracts  shall  be  taken  from  Dr.  Beecher's  sermon  on 
the  "  Native  Character  of  Man."  In  this  sermon  he  makes  the 
following  assertions  :  "  Neither  a  holy  nor  a  depraved  nature  are 
possible  without  understanding,  conscience,  and  choice.  To  say 
of  an  accountable  creature,  that  he  is  depraved  by  nature,  is  only 
to  say,  that  rendered  capable  by  his  Maker  of  obedience,  he  diso- 
beys from  the  commencement  of  his  accountability."  *' A  depraved 
nature  can  no  more  exist  without  voluntary  agency  and  accounta- 
bility, than  a  material  nature  can  exist,  without  solidity  and  exten- 
sion." *'If,  therefore,  man  is  depraved  by  nature,  it  is  a  voluntary 
and  accountable  nature  which  is  depraved,  exercised  in  disobe- 


158  DR. 

dience  to  the  law  of  God."  "  Native  depravity,  then,  is  a  state  of 
the  affections,  in  a  voluntary  accountable  creature,  at  variance  w^ith 
divine  requirement,  from  tlie  beginning  of  accountability."  "  The 
entireness  of  human  depravity  consists,  therefore,  in  the  constant, 
voluntary  refusal  of  man  to  love  the  Lord  his  God  with  supreme 
complacency  and  good  will."  All  this  seems  to  be  sufficiently 
explicit.  There  is  no  obscurity  to  occasion  a  doubt  as  to  the  au- 
thor's meaning.  The  terms  used  are  such  as  are  commonly  em- 
ployed in  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  and  the  statements  are  all 
so  clear  and  precise  that  no  commentary  is  needed  to  educe  or 
illustrate  their  meaning.  We  doubt  whether  the  writings  of  the 
New  Haven  divines  could  furnish  an  equal  number  of  sentences, 
which  more  completely  deny  the  actual  or  possible  existence  of  a 
depraved  nature  in  man  prior  to  moral  action. 

Of  this  famous  sermon  Dr.  Beecher  has.  however,  given  a  still 
more  famous  explanation.  It  was  written,  he  says,  with  the  view 
of  refuting  the  error  which  claims  as  moral  excellencies  the  various 
amiable  qualities  and  kindly  feelings  which  are  found  in  unregene- 
rate  men,  and  thus  undermines  the  doctrine  of  man's  total  depravity. 
At  least  this  is  one  account  of  the  object  he  had  in  view  in  writing 
the  sermon  ;  for  we  shall  presently  show  that  he  has  given  a  differ- 
ent one.  In  refuting  the  error  above  named,  he  contends  that  as 
he  had  no  occasion  to  speak  of  anything  but  actual  sin,  all  that  he 
says  should  be  applied  only  to  adult  man.  The  substance  of  his 
defence,  on  this  ground,  consists,  therefore,  in  interpolating  the  words 
actual  and  adult  before  depravity  in  all  the  passages  where  it 
occurs.  This  is  so  extraordinary  an  explanation  of  the  matter 
that  we  feel  really  embarrassed  to  know  how  to  deal  with  it. 
There  are  some  things  so  plain  that  they  cannot  be  made  plainer ; 
there  are  explanations  and  arguments  sometimes  adduced  in  the 
course  of  discussion  which  are  so  foreign  to  the  subject  that  nothing 
can  be  done  with  them  but  to  declare  that  they  are  impertinent. 
Even  thus  is  it  with  this  defence  of  Dr.  Beecher;  we  despair  of 
being  able  to  illustrate  its  incongruity  to  any  one  who  does  not  at 
once  perceive  it.  Because  the  primary  object  of  the  writer  was 
not  to  discuss  the  subject  of  original  sin,  is  it  therefore  certain  that 
this  subject  would  not  be  incidentally  alluded  to  ?  Is  it  considered 
a  sound  rule  of  interpretation  to  endeavour  to  ascertain  what  was 
the  author's  main  design,  and  then  to  assume  that  every  word  has 
strict  reference  to  this  one  subject  ?  This  is,  in  effect,  what  Dr. 
Beecher  claims  on  his  own  behalf.  "  The  sermon,"  he  says,  *•  was 
not  designed  to  have  any  reference  to  original  sin ;  it  spake  only 
of  the  present  actual  condition  of  adult  mind ;  the  question  how 
man  came  into  such  a  state  was  not  so  much  as  touched." 
Throughout*  the  whole  of  his  defence  of  this  sermon  there  is  an 

•  Bishop  Berkley  wrote  a  treatise,  called  Siris,  which  had  for  its  professed  object 
to  make  known  the  healing  virtues  of  tar-water,  but  in  the  course  of  which  he  goes 
into  a  discussion  of  the  ancient  philosophy,  the  harmonies  of  the  universe,  the  nature 
of  virtue,  &.c.  Allowing  him  the  same  latitude  which  Dr.  Beecher  claims,  he  might 
insist  upon  his  right  to  insert  tar-water  before  virtue  wherever  it  occurs. 


DR.  beecher's  theology.  159 

assumption  that  no  part  of  it  includes  or  refers  to  anything  beyond 
his  original  design  in  writing  it.  There  is  no  argument  beyond 
this  assumption  to  show  that  the  passages  objected  to  do  not  teach 
what  they  have  been  supposed  to  teach.  Because  he  did  not 
intend  to  discuss  the  question  how  man  came  into  his  present  state, 
therefore  this  question  was  not  touched,  though  there  are  the 
passages  in  which,  according  to  the  common  understanding  of  the 
English  language,  he  has  nut  only  touched  it,  but  decided  that  the 
present  condition  of  man  is  owing  to  his  voluntary  disobedience. 
Because  he  designed  to  prove  in  the  sermon  that  all  men  are  actual 
transgressors,  therefore  whenever  he  speaks  of  depravity  we  must 
prefix  the  qualifying  term,  adult,  no  matter  with  what  confusion 
of  grammar  or  sense.  The  design  and  drift  of  a  writer  ought 
indeed  to  be  consulted  in  interpreting  obscure  passages,  and  should 
decide  the  question  between  two  doubtful  meanings.  But  we  have 
never  before  met  with  any  one  who  would  carry  this  canon  of 
exegesis  so  far  as  to  pervert  entirely  the  ordinary  construction  and 
force  of  words,  for  the  sake  of  accommodating  them  to  the  one 
main  argument  of  the  writer.  The  subject  of  original  sin  is  so  fiir 
germane  to  that  of  actual  transgression  that  we  should  not  be  sur- 
prised to  see  it  alluded  to  by  the  most  logical  writer  upon  total 
depravity  ;  and  in  attempting,  therefore,  to  discover  the  meaning 
of  any  passage  in  his  discourse,  we  should  be  guided  by  the 
most  obvious  signification  of  the  terms  employed.  And  surely 
there  can  be  no  doubt  what  is  the  most  obvious  meaning  of  the 
passages  we  have  quoted  from  Dr.  Beecher.  They  are  so  plain 
that,  if  his  explanation  of  them  is  admissible,  we  must  abandon 
language  as  the  means  of  communicating  ideas,  and  invent  some 
less  dubious  method.  If  a  "depraved  nature"  means  actual  trans- 
gression, then  black  may  mean  white,  and  square  may  mean  round, 
and  root  may  mean  branch,  and  language  may  be  thrown  aside  as 
less  explicit  than  dumb  signs. 

Let  us  take  one  of  these  sentences  and  try  Dr.  Beecher's  expla- 
nation upon  it.  "Neither  a  holy  nor  depraved  nature  is  possible 
without  understanding,  conscience,  and  choice."  In  his  Defence 
he  interprets  this  to  mean,  that  "neither  a  holy  nor  depraved 
nature,  in  respect  to  actual  depravity,  is  possible."  There  is  no 
ditficulty  in  understanding  the  first  of  these  assertions.  By  a 
depraved  nature  in  man,  all  the  world  understand  that  disposition 
or  bent  of  mind  by  which  he  is  inclined  to  evil,  and  which  is  the 
source  of  all  actual  transgression.  The  declaration  that  such  a 
nature  is  impossible,  without  understanding,  reason,  and  choice, 
can  only  mean  that  depravity  cannot  be  affirmed  of  man  until  he 
has  reached  the  period  at  which  personal  accountability  commen- 
ces ;  and  this  is  well  known  to  be  one  of  the  prevalent  theories 
upon  this  subject ;  and  these  are  the  very  terms  in  which  that 
theory  is  generally  announced  by  those  who  confessedly  hold  it. 
But  we  are  utterly  at  a  loss  to  divine  the  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
"  a  depraved  nature,  in  respect  to  actual  depravity."     If  the  term 


160  DR.  beecher's  theology. 

actual  is  used  in  the  sense  of  real,  as  opposed  to  imaginary,  then  it 
would  seem  to  teach  that  the  depravity  which  exists  prior  to  moral 
action  is  only  a  kind  of  metaphysical  fiction,  holding  the  same  sort 
of  relation  to  the  truth  that  the  square  root  of  a  negative  quantity 
does  to  a  real  expression  in  algebra.  If  he  uses  the  word  actual 
as  opposed  to  potential,  and  means  to  distinguish  between  a  depra- 
ved nature  in  esse  and  in  posse,  we  must  deny  the  correctness  of 
the  distinction.  A  depraved  nature  is  itself  the  potential  existence 
of  actual  transgression.  Had  it  been  Dr.  Beecher's  intention 
merely  to  teach  that  all  actual  sin  is  voluntary,  it  would  have  been 
very  easy  for  him  to  have  expressed  this  idea;  but  we  cannot 
understand  how  the  extracts  which  we  have  given  can  be  made 
to  convey  it,  however  modified  they  may  be  by  the  expletives, 
actual  and  adult.  The  original  garment  refuses  to  receive  these 
heterogeneous  patches. 

We  have  said  that  Dr.  Beccher  has  given  two  different  accounts 
of  his  object  in  writing  this  sermon.  One  of  them  we  have  already 
given,  the  other  is  contained  in  the  following  extract  from  his 
Defence  ;  "  The  question  was  as  to  the  voluntariness  of  the  depra- 
vity of  an  adult  man.  Keep  this  in  remembrance,  and  then  let  me 
explain  the  drift  of  that  sermon.  After  proving  that  the  depravity 
of  man  is  very  great,  I  proceed  in  the  sermon  to  say  that  it  is 
voluntary,  and  this  doctrine  I  advance  in  opposition  to  the  philos- 
ophy which  represents  the  existence  of  a  great  black  pool  some- 
where behind  the  will ;  I  don't  know  how  biar,  but  which  continually 
pours  out  its  waters  of  death — waters  which  turn  the  will  as  if  it 
were  a  mill-wheel  attached  to  some  sort  of  patent  model,  which  is 

continually  working  out  sin The  doctrine  J  meant  to  oppose 

was  that  of  a  physical,  natural,  constitutional  depravity,  totally 
involuntary ;  and  as  instinctive  as  the  principle  which  teaches  a 
robin  to  build  her  nest,  or  a  lion  to  eat  flesh  and  not  grass.  Against 
this  notion  of  instinctive  depravity,  leading  men  of  necessity  to  do 
nothing  but  sin,  I  composed  the  sermon,  in  which  I  declare  that 
the  depravity  of  man,  implied  in  his  destitution  of  religion,  is  volun- 
tary," &c.  We  have  no  objection  to  this  account  of  the  matter, 
save  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  one  previously  given.  If  the 
sermon  were  written  to  counteract  the  notion  that  men  are  partially 
holy  on  account  of  their  natural  amiableness,  it  seems  to  us  that 
this  by-play  with  the  black-pool  and  robin-red-breast  theories  of  the 
will  is  quite  as  foreign  to  the  topic  as  a  touch  at  original  sin  would 
have  been.  Dr.  Beecher  has,  however,  just  as  good  a  right  to 
quarrel  with  this  great  big  black  pool,  as  Don  Quixote  had  to  fight 
with  the  windmill.  And  if  he  should  see  fit  to  exercise  this  right, 
we  cannot  find  it  in  our  hearts  to  blame  him ;  we  can  only  express 
our  wonder  that  a  man  of  his  undoubted  strength  should  expend  it 
in  beating  the  air,  or  in  creating  a  big  black  pool,  and  then  splash- 
ing in  its  dirty  waters  only  to  his  own  defilement.  Dr.  Beecher  is 
not  too  old  -to  learn.  He  has  recently  discovered  to  his  great 
amazement,  that  the  doctrine  of  free  agency,  which  he  had  previ- 


DR.  beecher's  theology.  161 

ously  thought  was  the  product  of  New  England  wisdom,  has  been 
held  in  all  ages  of  the  Church  in  connexion  with  the  Calvinistic 
system.  Yet  it  was  upon  this  very  point  that  he  was  formerly  in 
the  habit  of  breaking  out  into  the  most  copious  expressions  of  horror 
over  the  evils  produced  by  that  false  philosophy  which  had  been 
employed  for  the  exposition  of  Calvinism.  We  have  no  doubt  that 
he  has'  since  sincerely  repented  the  injustice  of  which  he  has  thus 
been  guilty  towards  others,  and  regretted  the  loss  of  his  own  time, 
which,  as  he  has  now  discovered,  was  wasted  in  contending  with 
shadows.  And  as  he  is  now  upon  the  right  track,  he  will  probably 
soon  discover  that  there  are  other  forms  of  that  false  philosophy 
which  he  has  attributed  to  old  Calvinists,  that  are,  in  truth,  nothing 
more  than  the  spectra  of  his  own  distempered  fancy. 

We  cannot  see  how  this  second  account  of  the  object  of  the 
sermon  sheds  any  light  upon  the  passages  which  we  have  quoted 
from  it.  Let  us  again  take  one  of  these  extracts,  and  see 
whether  there  is  the  least  relevancy  in  the  explanation.  "  To  say 
of  an  accountable  creature  that  he  is  depraved  by  nature,  is  only 
to  say,  that,  rendered  capable  by  his  Maker  of  obedience,  he  dis- 
obeys from  the  commencement  of  his  accountability."  This,  by 
itself,  seems  sutficiently  plain.  It  is  the  precise  account  which 
Prof.  Fitch  gave  of  man's  depravity  in  his  sermon  on  the  "  Nature 
of  Sin,"  and  which  has  since  been  repeatedly  given  from  the  New 
Haven  school.  It  could  hardly  be  made  more  definite  than  it  is. 
And  we  do  not  see  that  it  receives  the  least  illustration  from  the 
author's  information,  that  his  object  in  writing  the  sermon  was  to 
drain  off  the  big  black  pool  which  some  explorers  have  found  lying 
back  of  the  will,  or  that  his  aim  was  to  describe  the  depravity 
of  adult  man.  He  speaks  here  of  the  depravity  which  is  by  nature, 
and,  as  plainly  and  forcibly  as  words  can  do  it,  he  excludes  from 
it  everything  but  actual  disobedience. 

The  difficulty  under  which  Dr.  Beecher  felt  himself  to  labour  in 
his  defence,  will  be  further  perceived  in  the  claim  which  he, 
with  apparent  seriousness,  puts  forward,  that  in  this  very  sermon 
he  does  teach  and  establish  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  And  how  ? 
why,  "  by  proving  two  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  always  relied 
on  by  the  orthodox  church,  and  by  Edwards  in  particular,  to  prove 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin — I  mean  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity, 
and  the  doctrine  of  regeneration."  Verily  the  narrow  portals  of 
the  Calvinistic  platform  must  be  widened,  if  all  who  teach  total 
depravity  and  regeneration  are  to  be  therefore  considered  as  good 
believers  in  our  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Upon  this  principle,  it 
should  seem,  if  a  man  agrees  with  us  in  any  i»ne  fact  or  doctrine, 
we  are  to  assume  that  he  agrees  with  us  in  all  our  inferences  from  it. 
Dr.  Taylor  believes  and  teaches  that  all  men  are  sinners,  that  the 
first  moral  act,  and  all  the  successive  acts  of  every  man,  until  he  is 
renewed,  are  sinful.  He  has  urged  this  point  quite  as  strenuously 
as  Dr.  Beecher.  Are  we  therefore  to  conclude  that  Dr.  Taylor 
believes  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  as  taught  in  our  standards  ? 

11 


162  DR.  beecher's  theology. 

We  are  astonished  and  grieved  when  we  see  a  man  of  Dr. 
Beecher's  high  standing  engaged  in  the  attempt  to  palm  off  such 
wretched  sophistry — it  hardly  deserves  so  respectable  a  name — 
upon  the  Presbyterian  church. 

Dr.  Beecher  further  asserts,  that  in  one  of  the  very  passages 
"  claimed  to  deny  original  sin,  he  does  expressly  allude  to  and 
recognise  its  existence  as  a  reality."  Our  readers  will  doubtless 
be  curious  to  know  what  he  considers  a  recognition  of  this  doc- 
trine. We  quote  the  passage  which  contains  it.  "  Whatever  effect* 
therefore,  the  fall  of  man  may  have  had  on  his  race,  it  has  not  had 
the  effect  to  render  it  impossible  for  man  to  love  God  religiously  ; 
and  whatever  may  be  the  early  constitution  of  man,  there  is  noth- 
ing in  it,  and  nothing  withheld  from  it,  which  renders  disobedience 
unavoidable  and  obedience  impossible."  There  can  never  be  any 
lack  of  believers  in  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  if  the  vague,  nega- 
tive allusions,  "  whatever  effect  the  fall  of  man  may  have  had  on 
his  race,"  and  "  whatever  may  be  the  early  constitution  of  man," 
are  to  be  considered  a  sufficient  profession  of  faith.  Who  can 
withhold  his  sympathy  from  Dr.  Beecher,  in  the  affliction  which 
he  must  have  felt,  when  compelled  to  resort  to  such  means  as  this 
to  prove  his  orthodoxy  ?  There  is  not  a  Pelagian  or  Socinian  in  the 
land  who  might  not,  with  perfect  consistency,  have  uttered  this 
sentence  ;  and  he  must  have  felt  himself  hard  pressed  before  he 
could  have  been  driven  so  far  to  trifle  with  the  public,  and  with  his 
own  character,  as  to  allege  it  in  proof  of  his  recognition  of  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin. 

We  have  one  more  extract  from  Dr.  Beecher's  writings  which 
we  shall  produce  in  evidence  of  his  opinions  on  this  subject  prior 
to  his  trial.  We  solicit  specii]^!  attention  to  this  passage,  since  its 
explicitness  will  be  seen,  if  examined,  to  preclude  all  evasion  and 
subterfuge.  Through  some  neglect  or  oversight,  which  we  deeply 
regret,  it  was  not  produced  upon  his  trial.  Had  it  been,  we  see 
not  how  the  synod  could  have  avoided  convicting  Dr.  Beecher  of 
having  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  upon  this 
point.  The  passage  occurs  in  the  controversy  in  which  Dr. 
Beecher  was  engaged  with  the  editor  of  the  Christian  Examiner, 
in  the  year  1828.*     It  is  in  the  following  words  : 

"  The  Reformers  also,  with  one  accord,  taught  that  the  sin  of 
Adam  was  imputed  to  all  his  posterity,  and  that  a  corrupt  nature 
descends  from  him  to  every  one  of  his  posterity,  in  consequence  of 
which  infants  are  unholy,  unfit  for  heaven,  and  justly  exposed  to 
future  punishment.  Their  opinion  seems  to  have  been,  that  the 
very  substance  or  essence  of  the  soul  was  depraved,  and  that  the 
moral  contamination  extended  alike  to  all  its  powers  and  faculties, 
insomuch  that  sin  became  a  property  of  every  man's  nature,  and 

was  propagated  as  really  as  flesh  and  blood Our  Puritan 

fathers  adhered  to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as  consisting  in  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  in  a  hereditary  depravity  ;  and  this 

•  See  Spirit  ofthe  Pilgrims,  vol.  i.,  p.  158. 


163 

continued  to  be  the  received  doctrine  of  the  churches  of  New  Eng- 
land until  after  the  time  of  Edwards.  He  adopted  the  views  of 
the  Reformers  on  the  subject  of  original  sin,  as  consisting  in  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  a  depraved  nature  transmitted  by 
descent.  But  after  him  this  mode  of  stating  the  subject  was  gradu- 
ally changed,  until  long  since  the  prevailing  doctrine  in  New  Eng- 
land has  been,  that  men  are  not  guilty  of  Adam's  sin,  and  that 
depravity  is  not  of  the  substance  of  the  soul,  nor  an  inherent  or 
physical  quahty,  but  is  wholly  voluntary,  and  consists  in  the  trans- 
gression of  the  law,  in  such  circumstances  as  constitute  account- 
ability and  desert  of  punishment." 

Here,  at  least,  if  never  before.  Dr.  Beecher,  to  use  one  of  his  own 
expressions,  is  "  fairly  out"  upon  the  subject  of  original  sin.  It  is 
impossible  to  read  this  passage,  and  then  doubt  what  his  opinions 
were  at  the  time  he  wrote  it.  Will  he  pretend  that  he  was  merely 
giving  what  was  the  prevalent  doctrine  in  New  England,  and  not 
stating  his  own  views  ?  The  connexion  in  which  this  passage 
occurs  precludes  such  a  plea.  The  controversy  which  he  was 
waging  was  occasioned  by  a  note  to  his  sermon  on  the  Moral 
Government  of  God,  in  which  he  had  denied  that  the  Calvinistic 
scheme  involved  the  opinion  that  infants  are  damned.  The  editor 
of  the  Christian  Examiner  replied  to  this  note ;  and  Dr.  Beecher 
in  his  letter  to  him  complains  bitterly,  that  in  maintaining  his  argu- 
ment that  Calvinists  hold  the  offensive  opinion  in  question,  he 
makes  use  of  exploded  representations  on  the  subject  of  original 
sin,  instead  of  taking  those  which  he  knew  were  then  generally 
adopted  in  New  England.  Dr.  Beecher  therefore,  was  certainly 
guilty  of  duplicity  in  seeking  to  obtain  for  himself  what  he  deemed 
the  benefit  of  these  modified  views  of  original  sin,  if  he  did  not 
really  hold  them.  But  there  is  no  doubt,  there  can  be  none,  that 
he  is  here  stating  his  own  opinions.  Were  there  any,  it  would  be 
removed  by  the  following  passage  which  is  found  in  close  con- 
nexion with  the  one  above  quoted.  "  The  pamphlets  and  treatises 
on  this  subject  were  written,  and  the  subject  settled,  before  my 
recollection.  But  I  have  read  them,  and  have  searched  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  have  from  the  beginning  accommodated  my  phraseo- 
logy to  opinions  which  had  been  adopted  as  the  result  of  an  inves- 
tigation which  commenced  more  than  seventy  years  ago,  and  has 
been  settled  more  than  fifty  years."  Dr.  Beecher  here  declares, 
that  the  opinions  which  he  had  just  presented  on  the  subject  of 
original  sin,  were  his  own,  that  he  had  adopted  them  after  careful 
study,  and  that  he  had  preached  them  from  the  beginning. 

Will  he  urge  that  he  is  here  speaking  of  actual  or  adult  depra- 
vity ?  We  should  feel  that  we  were  unjust  towards  Dr.  Beecher, 
in  intimating  the  possibility  of  his  resort  to  such  grounds  of 
defence,  were  it  not  for  the  specimen  which  he  has  already  given  of 
his  wonderful  capabilities  in  this  line.  But  all  the  changes  which 
he  can  ring  upon  the  words  actual  and  adult  will  not  help  him 
here.     He  is,  in  this  part  of  his  letter,  professedly  giving  what  he 


164  DR. 

deems  the -true  view  of  original  sin,  in  opposition  to  the  old  Calvin- 
istic  doctrine,  from  which  his  adversary  had  drawn  some  of  his 
arguments.  It  is  then  of  infants,  not  adults,  that  he  is  writing  ;  it 
is  of  a  depraved  nature,  existing  prior  to  moral  action,  in  distinc- 
tion from  whatever  it  Is  that  he  means  by  "  a  depraved  nature  in 
respect  to  actual  depravity." 

Assuming  what  cannot  be  questioned,  that  this  passage  contains 
Dr.  Beecher's  views  of  original  sin,  it  suggests  several  very  obvi- 
ous reflections.  We  see  that  Dr.  Bcecher  here,  as  in  his  other 
writings,  misrepresents  and  caricatures  the  orthodox  doctrine,  that 
doctrine  which  he  admits  was  generally  held  from  the  time  of  the 
Reformation  until  after  Edwards.  After  stating  correctly  the  doc- 
trine which  they  taught,  he  adds  his  own  version  of  it  in  these 
words,  "  that  the  very  substance  or  essence  of  the  soul  was 
depraved."  And  in  giving  an  account  of  the  change  which  had 
taken  place  in  the  mode  of  stating  the  subject,  he  makes  the  nega- 
tive part  of  it  to  consist  in  the  denial  "  that  men  are  guilty 
of  Adam*s  sin,  and  that  depravity  is  of  the  substance  of  the 
soul,  or  an  inherent  or  physical  quality,"  This,  then,  was 
the  doctrine  which  had  been  previously  taught  by  Edwards, 
and  his  predecessors.  But  he  otherwise  represents  their  doc- 
trine as  teaching  that  "  a  corrupt  nature  descends  from  Adam 
to  every  one  of  his  posterity,"  or  that  "  original  sin  consists  in  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  in  a  hereditary  depravity,"  or  "  a 
depraved  nature  transmitted  by  descent."  Let  it  then  be  distinctly 
marked  and  held  in  remembrance,  that  when  Dr.  Beecher  rails  at 
physical  depravity,  he  means  hereditary  depravity  ;  when  he 
attacks  the  opinion  that  the  substance  or  essence  of  the  soul  is 
depraved,  his  shafts  are  levelled  against  the  doctrine  of  a  corrupt 
nature  descending  from  Adam  to  his  posterity.  We  have  often 
been  much  perplexed  in  the  attempt  to  understand  what  is  meant 
by  certain  men,  when  they  declaim  against  physical  depravity, 
material  sin,  &c. ;  and  we  have  sometimes  been  uncharitable 
enough  to  think  that  they  had  no  meaning  at  all,  and  made  use  of 
these  phrases  merely  to  round  a  sentence  or  point  an  antithesis. 
But  Dr.  Beecher  makes  his  meaning  sufl^ciently  plain.  He  uses 
physical  depravity,  and  a  depraved  nature  transmitted  by  descent, 
as  convertible  phrases  ;  and  he  leaves  no  halting-place  between 
the  theory  that  depravity  consists  in  a  voluntary  action,  and  that 
which  makes  it  a  physical  quality.  If  this  is  done  ignorantly — if 
Dr.  Beecher  is  really  unable  to  j!Jerceive  the  difference  between 
the  orthodox  doctrine  of  a  corrupt  nature,  and  that  of  moral 
depravity  in  the  physical  structure  of  the  soul,  then  he  ought  cer- 
tainly to  lay  aside  the  oflice  and  the  air  of  an  iristructer  of  his 
brethren  in  theology.  But  if  the  misrepresentation  is  made  wilfully, 
we  will  venture  to  recommend  to  him  the  same  discipline  which 
he  once  advised  in  a  similar  case,  the  careful  study  of  the  ninth 
commandment.  We  are  willing,  however,  in  the  present  instance, 
to  endure  the  pain  of  this  evil  report  of  our  opinions,  and  even  feel 


DR.    BEECHER*S   THEOLOGY.  165 

grateful  to  Dr.  Beecher  on  account  of  it,  because  of  the  key  which 
it  furnishes  to  the  passages  in  which  he  fulminates  against  physical 
depravity,  and  those  who  hold  and  teach  it. 

We  were  moreover  struck,  while  reading  this  passage,  with  the 
wonderful  similarity  between  its  statements  and  those  already 
quoted  from  the  sermon  on  the  Native  Character  of  Man.  It  is 
truly  surprising  that  there  should  be  such  a  strong  likeness,  a  per- 
fect identity  indeed,  between  the  two,  when  we  consider  that  in  the 
one  he  is  describing  actual  depravity,  or  adult  depravity,  or  a 
depraved  nature  in  respect  to  actual  depravity,  and  in  the  other,  that 
depravity  which  belongs  to  original  sin.  Speaking  of  a  depraved 
nature  in  respect  to  actual  depravity,  he  says,  "  U,  therefore,  man 
is  depraved  by  nature,  it  is  a  voluntary  and  accountable  nature 
which  is  depraved,  exercised  in  disobedience  to  the  law  of  God ;" 
and  speaking  of  a  depraved  nature  in  respect  to  original  sin,  he 
says,  "  Depravity  is  wholly  voluntary,  and  consists  in  the  trans- 
gression of  the  law  in  such  circumstances  as  constitute  account- 
ability and  desert  of  punishment."  We  may  surely  be  pardoned 
the  natural  error  of  supposing,  that  in  these  sentences  he  was 
describing  the  same  thing.  Especially  do  we  think  we  may  be 
forgiven  this  offence,  when  it  is  further  observed  that  he  uses  the 
same  phrases,  native  depravity,  depraved  nature,  &c.,  in  the  one 
case  to  denote  actual  depravity,  and  in  the  other  that  which  is  not 
actual.  And  yet,  further,  would  we  plead  in  extenuation  of  our 
error,  that  Dr.  Beecher  informs  us  in  this  letter,  that  the  views 
which  it  presents  of  original  sin  were  those  which  he  had  held  from 
the  beginning,  and  to  which  he  had  always  accommodated  his 
phraseology.  What  then  could  have  been  more  natural  than  for 
us  to  suppose,  when  we  found  in  this  letter  a  certain  assertion  made 
respecting:  "  native  depravity,"  and  then  found  the  same  assertion 
respecting  "  native  depravity,"  in  a  sermon  written  previously, 
that  they  both  had  reference  to  the  same  thing.  If  we  have, 
indeed,  erred  in  this  supposition,  we  must  pronounce  it  hazardous 
to  attempt  to  interpret  any  production  of  Dr.  Beecher,  until  he  has 
first  been  tried  for  it,  and  had  an  opportunity  to  put  in  his  explana- 
tion and  defence. 

Our  last  remark  upon  this  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin  is,  that  the  author  himself  cannot  have  the  hardihood  to  deny 
that  it  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  Confession  of  Faith.  He  ex- 
pressly rejects  the  doctrine,  whatever  it  was,  which  had  been 
taught  by  the  Reformers,  the  Puritan  fathers  of  New  England,  and 
by  Edwards,  and  it  has  never  been  denied  or  doubted  that  the 
doctrine  which  they  taught  is  that  of  our  Confession.  He  denies 
that  men  are  guilty  of  Adam's  sin,  and  thus  rejects  the  doctrine 
of  imputation.  He  asserts  that  all  depravity  is  voluntary,  and 
consists  in  the  transgression  of  the  law,  discarding,  as  plainly 
as  language  can  do  it,  the  doctrine  of  a  depraved  nature  transmit- 
ted from  Adam  to  his  posterity.  Yet  this  doctrine,  thus  discredited, 
and   contemptuously  given  *^over  to   the   tender   mercies  of  his 


166  DR.  beecher's  theology. 

Socinian  adversary,  is  the  doctrine  of  our  standards.  He  does 
not  simply  modify  the  orthodox  mode  of  stating  this  doctrine, 
he  altogether  rejects  the  doctrine  itself.  In  a  passage  following 
the  one  we  have  given,  he  says,  "  These  (the  New  England 
divines)  while  they  disclaim  the  language  held  hy  Calvin 
and  Edwards  on  the  subject  of  imputation,  do,  in  accordance  with 
the  Bible  and  the  Reformers,  teach  that  there  is  a  connexion  of 
some  kind  between  the  sin  of  Adam  and  the  universal,  voluntary, 
and  entire  depravity  of  his  posterity  ;  so  that  it  is  in  consequence 
of  Adam's  sin  that  all  mankind  do  sin  voluntarily,  as  early  as  they 
are  capable  of  accountability  and  moral  action."  This  restriction 
of  the  whole  matter  to  "  a  connexion  of  some  kind"  between  Adam 
and  his  posterity,  in  consequence  of  which  they  all  sin  voluntarily 
as  soon  as  they  become  capable  of  moral  action,  does  more  than 
discard  our  mode  of  representing  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as 
consisting  in  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  the  want  of  original 
righteousness,  and  the  corruption  of  man's  whole  nature.  By 
denying  that  we  are  in  any  sense  guilty  of  Adam's  sin,  and  reject- 
ing the  idea  of  a  corrupt  nature  transmitted  by  descent,  while  it 
confines  all  depravity  to  actual  transgression,  it  removes  the  whole 
ground  of  distinction  between  original  and  actual  sin.  It  is  mere 
quibbling,  or  something  worse,  to  retain  the  phrase,  when  every- 
thing that  could  be  meant  by  it  has  been  rejected.  Besides  actual 
transgression.  Dr.  Beecher  teaches  that  there  is  nothing  but  "  a 
connexion  of  some  kind"  existing  between  Adam  and  his  posterity. 
But  he  certainly  cannot  contend  for  the  absurdity  of  applying  the 
term  original  sin  to  this  connexion.  Sin  denotes  something  in  the 
subject,  not  out  of  him.  The  phrase  cannot  be  applied  to  the  con- 
nexion itself,  nor  are  we  at  liberty  to  affix  it  to  the  effect  of  this 
connexion  upon  the  subjects  of  it,  for  this,  he  assures  us,  is  actual 
transgression,  not  original  sin.  He  believes  that  accountability 
does  not  "  commence  from  the  womb,"  and  that  the  time  when  it 
does  commence  "  is  not  and  cannot  be  exactly  known  to  any  but 
the  eye  of  God."  Previous  to  this  period,  upon  his  theory,  nothing 
more  can  be  affirmed  of  the  infant  than  that,  in  consequence  of  the 
sin  of  Adam,  it  is  certain  that  it  will  sin  voluntarily,  as  soon  as  it 
becomes  capable  of  moral  action.  This  is  the  utmost  extent  to 
which  his  doctrine  can  carry  us  ;  and  what  more  gross  misappli- 
cation of  language  is  possible  than  to  term  this  undefined  con- 
nexion with  Adam,  or  the  certainty  arising  from  it  that  the  being 
will  actually  sin,  original  sin.  This  phrase  should,  in  fairness,  be 
thrown  aside,  if  there  can  be  no  depravity  or  sin  without  "  a 
transgression  of  the  law  under  such  circumstances  as  constitute 
accountability  and  desert  of  punishment."  We  should  despair  of 
being  able  to  construct  a  categorical  denial  of  every  semblance  of 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  if  this  be  not  one. 

We  expressed  regret  that  the  passage  upon  which  we  have  been 
commenting  had  not  been  produced  in  evidence  upon  the  trial,  but 
we  recall  this  expression.     We  doubt  whether  such  regret  is  con- 


167 

sistent  with  the  proper  degree  of  kindly  feeling  towards  Dr. 
Beecher.  No  friend  of  his,  who  has  beheld  the  pitiable  plight  to 
which  he  was  reduced  by  the  extracts  that  were  brought  forward 
from  his  sermon,  the  hopeless  conflict  in  which  he  felt  himself  com- 
pelled to  struggle  with  the  obvious  meaning  of  his  words,  and  the 
wandering  mazes  of  confusion  and  nonsense  in  which  he  was  lost, 
can  desire  that  his  calamity  should  have  been  so  much  increased 
as  it  must  have  been  had  this  passage  been  produced. 

When  it  is  considered  that  out  of  the  little  that  Dr.  Beecher  had 
published  which  touched  at  all  upon  controverted  points  in  theo- 
logy, there  was  so  much  that  denied  the  doctrine  of  original  sin — 
that  his  sermons  and  conversation  were  said,  by  many  competent 
judges  who  were  in  the  habit  of  hearing  them,  to  contain  much 
more  to  the  same  effect — that  he  had  declared,  in  his  letter  to  Dr. 
Porter,  that  there  were  some  things  in  which  he  agreed  with  Dr. 
Taylor — and  that  it  was  publicly  known  that  during  the  contro- 
versy between  Dr.  Taylor  and  Dr.  Tyler,  in  the  Spirit  of  the  Pil- 
grims, either  as  the  locum  tenens  of  the  editor,  or  in  some  other 
capacity,  he  acted  as  second  to  Dr.  Taylor — is  it  wonderful,  when 
these  things  are  considered,  that  Dr.  Beecher  should  have  been 
more  than  suspected  of  heresy  ?  Were  the  accusations  against 
him  so  entirely  groundless,  that  he  is  entitled  to  assume  the  attitude 
and  tone  of  an  injured  man  ?  Truly,  we  think  the  merchant  or  phy- 
sician who  had  given  as  much  reason  for  suspicion  of  his  honesty 
or  his  skill,  however  aged,  might  not  only  be  justly  called  upon  to 
exhibit  his  books,  or  give  an  account  of  his  cases  and  practice, 
but  that  he  ought  to  esteem  himself  fortunate  if  he  escaped  con- 
viction of  fraud,  or  quackery,  and  humbly  resolve  to  amend  his 
course,  instead  of  censuring  those  who  had  called  him  to  an 
account. 

We  will  now  take  up  Dr.  Beecher's  Views  in  Theology,  and 
seek  to  ascertain  what  opinions  he  there  avows  on  the  subject  of 
original  sin.  And  here  we  find  an  account  so  different,  so  diame- 
trically opposed  to  that  which  he  had  previously  given,  that  we 
can  hardly  believe  them  to  have  proceeded  from  the  same  pen.* 
The  voice  that  we  hear  is  no  longer  the  exulting  tone  o^  one  pro- 
claiming new  and  important  truths  in  theology ;  it  sounds  like  an 
echo  from  the  tomb  of  the  dead  and  buried  orthodoxy  of  the 
Reformers  and  the  Puritan  fathers.  Let  the  following  extract  be  com- 
pared with  those  which  we  have  given  from  his  previous  writings. 

*  We  have  indeed  heard  it  said,  that  after  the  publication  of  his  Views  in  Theo- 
logy, Dr.  Beecher,  as  if  doubtful  of  his  own  identity,  sought  to  assure  himself  by 
going  on  to  New  Haven  and  ascertaining  whether  Dr.  Taylor  would  recognise  him. 
It  is  added,  that  the  result  of  the  experiment  was  entirely  satisfactory.  But  this 
€tory  must  be  apocryphal.  We  can  readily  conceive  that  Dr.  B.  might  feel  himself 
in  the  predicament  of  Amphitryo  when  he  exclaimed, 

Num  formam  perdidi  ?  mirum  quin  me  norit  Sosia. 
Scrutabor  :  eho  die  mihi,  quis  videor  ?  num  satis  Amphitruo? 

But  the  incredible  part  of  the  storj  is  that  Sosia  recognised  Amphitryo. 


168 

"  What  the  precise  errors  are  which  1  am  supposed  to  hold  I  do 
not  know;  but  from  the  evidence  relied  on,  and  the  general  course  of 
the  argument,  it  would  seem  that  I  am  supposed  to  hold  the  Pela- 
gian doctrine  on  the  subject  (original  sin);  that  I  deny  that  Adam 
was  the  federal  head  and  representative  of  his  race;  that  the 
covenant  was  made  not  only  with  Adam,  but  also  with  his  poste- 
rity ;  that  the  guilt  of  his  sin  was  imputed  to  them ;  that  there  is 
any  such  thing  as  native  depravity ;  or  that  infants  are  depraved. 
That,  on  the  contrary,  1  hold  and  teach  that  infants  are  innocent, 
and  as  pure  as  Adam  before  the  fall;  and  that  each  one  stands  or 
falls  for  himself  as  he  rises  to  personal  accountability ;  and  that 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  original  sin  descending  from  Adam  by 
ordinary  generation ;  and  that  original  sin  is  not  sin,  or  in  any 
sense  deserving  God's  wrath  and  curse. 

"  Now  every  one  of  these  assumed  errors  of  my  faith  /  deny  to  he 
my  faith.  They  ascribe  to  me  opinions  which  I  have  never  held 
nor  taught,  and  as  I  shall  show,  there  is  no  evidence  that  1  ever 
taught  one  of  them." 

This  confession  leaves  us  nothing  to  desire  on  this  subject.  The 
most  orthodox  cannot  go  beyond  it.  Translated  from  its  present 
negative  into  the  equivalent  positive  form,  it  would  read  thus :  "  I 
hold  and  teach,  that  Adam  was  the  federal  head  and  representative 
of  his  race ;  that  the  covenant  was  made  not  only  with  Adam,  but 
also  with  his  posterity ;  that  the  guilt  of  his  sin  was  imputed  to 
them ;  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  native  depravity,  and  that  in- 
fants are  depraved.  I  hold  and  teach  that  infants  are  guilty ;  that 
they  are  already  fallen,  before  they  rise  to  personal  accountability ; 
that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  original  sin,  descending  from  Adam 
by  ordinary  generation ;  and  that  original  sin  is  properly  sin,  and 
deserving  of  God's  wrath  and  curse." 

Those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  controversies  to  which  the 
subject  of  original  sin  has  given  rise,  will  at  once  perceive  bovy 
explicitly  this  confession  meets  and  rejects  every  error  that  has  at 
any  time  prevailed.  We  have  never  seen,  within  the  same  com- 
pass, so  close  and  strict  a  statement  of  the  doctrine,  one  which  so 
fully  yielded  all  that  the  orthodox  demand,  and  so  carefully  guarded 
against  everything  to  which  they  object.  We  do  not  believe  that 
there  is  upon  record  a  Calvinistic  statement  of  this  doctrine,  which 
adds  anything  which  is  not  included  in  the  view  that  Dr.  Beecher 
here  presents  as  his  own.  It  would  have  been  entirely  satisfac- 
tory, therefore,  and  we  should  have  rejoiced  in  it  beyond  measure, 
if  in  connexion  with  this  profession  of  his  faith,  he  had  made  a 
recantation  of  his  former  errors.  Or  we  should  have  been  satis- 
fied with  the  virtual  recantation,  implied  in  this  profession,  if  he 
had  not  seen  fit  to  accompany  it  with  the  express  declaration, 
'*  Such,  on  the  subject  of  original  sin,  are  the  views  which  I  have 
always  held  and  taught  since  I  have  been  in  the  ministry."  Again, 
he  says,  "  My  doctrmal  opinions  have  been  unchanged  from  the 
beginning."     And  yet  again,  "  In  doctrine  I  am  what  I  have  ever 


169 

been."  These  declarations  are  the  source  of  our  perplexity  and 
our  misgivings.  Here  he  declares,  that  ever  since  he  has  been  in 
the  ministry  he  has  held  and  taught,  "  that  original  sin  descends 
from  Adam  to  his  posterity,  by  ordinary  generation,"  or,  as  he 
again  expresses  it  in  another  passage,  that  "it  descends  from  Adam, 
by  natural  generation  to  all  his  race."  But  in  his  letter  to  the 
editor  of  the  Christian  Examiner,  he  informs  us,  that  he  has  from 
the  beginning  adopted  those  opinions  of  original  sin  which  reject 
the  idea  presented  by  the  Reformers, "  of  a  depraved  nature,  trans- 
mitted by  descent."  Here  he  professes  to  believe,  "that  the  guilt 
of  Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  his  posterity ;"  in  his  letter  he  states 
his  opinion  to  be,  "  that  men  are  not  guilty  of  Adam's  sin."  Here 
he  affirms  that  "it  (original  sin)  is.involuntary  ;''*  in  his  letter  he 
declares  that  there  is  no  depravity  save  that  which  is  "  wholly 
voluntary."  Here  he  teaches  that  infants  are  guilty,  before  they 
rise  to  personal  accountability,  and  deserving  God's  wrath  and 
curse ;  in  his  letter  he  tells  us  that  there  is  no  depravity  or  guilt, 
but  that  which  arises  from  "the  transgression  of  the  law  under 
such  circumstances  as  constitute  accountability  and  desert  of  pun- 
ishment." Here  he  says  of  original  sin,  that  "it  is  denominated  by 
Edwards,  and  justly,  an  exceedingly  evil  and  depraved  nature  ;"f 
in  his  letter  he  declares  that  he  has  always  repudiated  the  views 
and  language  of  Edwards  upon  this  subJLJCt. 

Here  is  contradiction  palpable  and  broad.  The  two  views  pre- 
sented by  Dr.  Beecher,  in  his  earlier  and  later  publications,  belong 
to  two  entirely  different,  two  opposite  systems.  They  have  no 
common  points  of  resemblance,  and  the  same  man  can  no  more 
hold  the  two  simultaneously  in  his  faith,  than  he  can  believe  both 
in  the  Ptolemaic  and  the  Copernican  systems  of  the  universe.  Yet 
Dr.  Beecher  assures  us  again  and  again  that  he  has  never  changed 
in  doctrine;  that  he  has  always  taught  that  native  depravity  is 
voluntary,  and  always  taught  that  native  depravity  is  involuntary. 
We  know  not  which  way  to  turn  for  a  solution  of  this  paradox. 
We  are  unwilling  to  believe  that  Dr.  Beecher  is  so  obtuse  in  his 
perception  of  truth,  that  he  does  not  see  the  wide  and  bridgeless 
gulf  between  these  two  systems.  We  are  reluctant,  too,  to  believe 
that  pride  or  false  shame  would  keep  him  from  acknowledging  a 
change  in  his  views,  if  himself  conscious  that  such  a  change  had 
taken  place.  And  we  would  fain  avoid  the  belief  that  in  his  ortho- 
dox professions,  he  uses  words  and  terms  in  a  different  sense  from 
that  which  he  knows  others  will  attach  to  them,  thus  reserving  to 
himself  the  liberty  of  retreat,  under  the  shelter  of  the  esoteric  sense, 
to  his  former  views,  whenever  the  days  of  trial  for  heresy  shall 
have  passed  by.  We  can  conceive  no  other  solution,  save  that 
which  is  afforded  by  one  of  these  hypotheses  ;--but  we  are  unwil- 
ling to  choose  between  them,  and  will  leave  our  readers,  after  this 
exhibition  of  the  facts  and  the  difficulties  of  the  case,  to  form  their 
own  conclusion. 

*  See  Views  in  Theology,  p.  193.  f  See  Views,  p.  194. 


170  DR.  beecher's  theology. 

We  regret  most  sincerely  and  deeply  the  result  of  our  exan^i- 
nation  into  Dr.  Beecher's  opinions.  It  is  painful  to  bring  forward 
such  charges  as  are  implied  in  the  exhibition  we  have  made, 
against  one  whom  we  are  constrained  on  so  many  accounts  to 
admire  and  respect.  But  truth  and  justice  are  superior  in  their 
claims  to  personal  considerations ;  and  we  have  felt  that  under  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case  they  required  this  exposure  at 
our  hands. 

The  only  other  topic  which  we  intended  to  make  the  subject  of 
extended  comment,  is  the  theory  which  Dr.  Beecher  gives  of  the 
will,  in  his  discussion  of  Natural  Ability.  But  we  have  already 
occupied  so  much  space  that  we  must  defer  our  remarks  on  this 
point. 


SECOND    ARTICLE. 

In  resuming  the  examination  of  Dr.  Beecher's  views,  with  the 
object  of  discussing  his  theory  of  moral  agency,  we  feel  that  we 
are  undertaking  a  task  of  considerable  difficulty.  It  is  by  no  means 
easy  to  cull  from  the  mass  of  heterogeneous  and  irrelevant  matler 
which  he  has  brought  together,  a  consistent  account  of  his  peculiar 
opinions.  When  we  think  we  have  caught  his  meaning  upon  one 
page,  the  next  is  sure  to  unsettle  us.  At  one  time  he  seems  to  be 
contending  with  the  Antinomian  fatalist — at  another,  with  the  old- 
fashioned  Calvinist — and  not  seldom,  as  if  unable  to  find  other 
antagonists  worthy  of  his  prowess,  he  is  reduced  to  the  necessity 
of  fighting  with  himself.  It  might  be  an  amusing,  and  certainly 
would  be  an  easy  exercise  to  answer  one  part  of  his  book  by  quo- 
tations from  another.  He  gives  ample  evidence  of  the  correctness 
of  the  late  Dr.  Porter's  opinion,  that  Dr.  Beecher  is  no  metaphysi- 
cian. At  every  step  he  manifests  a  most  singular  incompetency 
for  discussions  of  this  nature.  He  seldom  defines  the  words  or 
phrases  which  he  employs — and  when  he  does,  it  is  generally  with 
such  want  of  precision,  that  he  might  better  have  left  them  unde- 
fined. Where  we  feel  the  need  oT  a  clear  and  definite  statement 
of  the  point  in  debate,  we  are  treated  often  to  an  unmeaning  jingle 
of  words  ;  and  where  we  have  a  right  to  expect  an  argument  we 
have  a  metaphor  unexpectedly  played  off  upon  us.  Instead  of 
giving  us,  in  a  lucid  train  of  consecutive  reasoning,  a  defence  of 
the  opinions  in  debate,  he  deals  out  page  after  page  of  glowing 
declamation  in  proof  of  positions  which  no  one  has  ever  denied. 
There,  may  be  much  good  rhetoric  in  all  this,  but  it  is  sadly 
wanting  in  logic.  It  might  make  a  deep  impression  if  delivered, 
ore  rotundo,  before  a  popular  audience,  but  it  will  make  no  con- 
verts among  those  who  are  accustomed  to  study  the  subject  which 
it  treats. 


DR.  beecher's  theology.  171 

The  theory  of  the  will,  beyond  all  other  subjects  within  the  range 
of  mental  and  moral  science,  demands  precision  in  the  use  of  lan- 
guage. The  terms  employed,  being  of  necessity  those  of  the  fire- 
side and  the  forum,  possess  many  ditlerent  shades  of  meaning,  and 
cannot  well  serve  the  purposes  of  scientific  discussion,  unless 
they  are  first  precisely  defined,  and  then  used  in  the  single  sense 
attached  to  them.  Without  the  most  scrupulous  and  vigilant  care, 
any  attempt  to  elucidate  this  subject  can  end  only  in  multiplying 
words  without  knowledge.  Dr.  Beecher  might  have  learned  an 
important  lesson  upon  this  matter  from  an  author  of  whom  he 
would  hardly  have  spoken  as  he  has  done,  if  he  had  been  familiar 
with  his  writings,  and  from  whom  we  quote  therefore  the  following 
sentence  for  his  benefit.  "  Seeing  then  that  truth  consisteth  in  the 
right  ordering  of  names  in  our  aflirmations,  a  man  that  seeketh 
precise  truth  hath  need  to  remember  what  every  name  he  uses 
stands  for,  and  to  place  it  accordingly ;  or  else  he  will  find  him- 
self entangled  in  words,  as  a  bird  in  lime-twigs."*  There  are  very 
few  authors,  who  have  written  extensively  upon  the  abstruse 
subject  of  the  will,  who  will  not  be  found  occasionally  open 
to  censure  upon  this  score,  so  extremely  diflicult  is  it  to  guard 
entir^ily  against  the  snare  set  for  them  in  the  ambiguity  of  language. 
But  there  is  a  vagueness  in  the  terms  and  statements  of  Dr. 
Beecher,  and  a  looseness  in  his  method  of  reasoning  as  well  as  his 
phraseology  which  are  altogether  pecufiar  to  himself.  This  would 
have  been  the  more  surprising  to  us  on  account  of  the  seeming  con- 
sciousness of  strength  with  which  he  comes  forward  to  grapple  with 
thedifficultiesof  thesubject,  had  wenotlongsince  learned  to  consider 
a  manifestation  of  such  confidence  no  proof  of  extraordinary  fitness 
for  the  undertaking.  "  Settle,"  he  says,  "  the  philosophy  of  free 
agency — what  are  the  powers  of  a  free  agent — how  they  are  put 
together,  and  how  they  operate  in  personal,  accountable  action — 
and  controversy  among  all  the  friends  of  Christ  will  cease.  It  has 
often  been  said  that  it  never  can  be  settled.  I  believe  no  such 
thing.  The  perplexities  of  the  schoolmen  are  passing  away,"  &c. 
It  has  been  said  by  one  who  delved  much  more  than  we  have  done 
among  the  tomes  of  the  middle  ages,  that  it  was  "  impossible  for 
any  mortal  living  to  tell  what  a  schoolman  ever  meant  by  his 
words  ;"f  but  there  can  hardly  be  anything  in  Duns  Scotus  or 

*  Hobbes's  Treatise  on  Human  Nature. 

t  We  doubt  very  much  the  wisdom  or  justice  of  sneering  by  wholesale  at  the 
schoolmen  The  logical  subtleties  to  which  they  devoted  themselves,  though  per- 
plexing, yet  on  this  very  account  sharpened  in  a  high  degree  their  intellect,  and 
quickened  their  powers  of  discrimination  and  argument;  and  it  was  the  opinion  of 
Leibnitz,  frequently  avowed,  at  a  time  when  such  an  avowal  was  dangerous  to  one's 
reputation  and  almost  to  his  personal  safety,  "  that  there  was  much  gold  in  the 
impure  mass  of  scholastic  philosophy."  This  great  man  often  confesses  his  own 
obligations  to  the  scholastic  writers,  and  his  high  estimate  of  the  value  of  many  of 
their  works.  It  would  be  a  useful  undertaking,  would  some  competent  scholar,  who 
could  gain  access  to  their  productions,  examine  them  carefully  and  gather  from  them 
what  is  worth  preserving.  We  have  little  doubt  that  much  sterling  ore  might  be 
dug  out  from  this  mine. 


172  DR.  beecher's  theology. 

Thomas  Aquinas  more  perplexing  than  would  be  the  attempt  to 
educe  an  intelligible  meaning  from  many  of  Dr.  Beecher's  sen- 
tences. Let  the  following  formal  definition  be  taken  for  a  sample. 
"  By  natural  inability,  I  understand  that  which  an  agent,  though 
ever  so  willing,  cannot  do,  from  defect  of  capacity."  According 
to  this  definition  the  natural  inability  of  a  loose  and  careless  thinker 
would  be  a  compact,  well-digested  piece  of  reasoning.  The  inabi- 
lity is  not  an  attribute  of  the  agent — it  is  the  thing  which  he  cannot 
do.  And  were  this  mistake  rectified,  the  definition  would  still  be 
incomplete.  It  limits  natural  inability  to  the  want  of  power  which 
is  consequent  upon  "  defect  of  capacity."  But  it  is  obvious  that 
though  the  eyes  of  a  man  should  be  ever  so  good,  yet  if  he  were 
deprivedof  light,  he  would  labour  under  a  natural  inability  of  seeing. 
So  far  as  the  applicability  of  the  term  natural  is  concerned,  it  is  a 
matter  of  indifference  whether  the  inability  result  from  a  defect  in 
the  faculties  of  the  agent,  or  in  any  of  the  conditions  required  by 
nature  for  the  appropriate  exercise  of  his  faculties. 

Other  instances  of  a  like  kind  are  not  wanting.  There  is 
a  vagueness,  remarkable  even  in  Dr.  Beecher,  attending  his 
use  of  the  terms,  cause  and  effect.  The  following  passage 
furnishes  an  example.  "  The  supposition  of  accountability  for 
choice,  coerced  by  a  natural  necessity,  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of 
things  as  God  has  constituted  them.  The  relation  of  cause  and 
effect  pervades  the  universe.  The  natural  world  is  full  of  it.  It 
is  the  basis  of  all  science,  and  of  all  intellectual  operation,  with 
respect  to  mind.  Can  the  intellect  be  annihilated,  and  thinking  go 
on  ?  No  more  can  the  power  of  choice  be  annihilated,  and  free 
agency  remain."  The  power  of  choice,  or,  in  other  words,  the 
faculty  usually  denominated  the  will,  is  certainly  requisite  to  free 
agency.  This  we  suppose  no  one  has  ever  denied,  since  no  defini- 
tion of  free  agency  can  be  given  which  does  not  virtually  imply 
the  existence  of  a  will  in  the  agent.  But  it  is  certainly  a  very 
strange  use  of  the  words  to  call  the  will  a  cause,  and  free  agency 
its  effect ;  and  the  analogical  argument  founded  on  this  assumed 
relation  is  most  lame  and  impotent.  Dr.  Beecher  however  is  so 
partial  to  this  analogy  that  he  introduces  it  again  under  a  subse- 
quent head  of  argument.  "  The  supposition,"  he  says,  "  of  con- 
tinued responsibility,  after  all  the  powers  of  causation  are  gone,  is 
contrary  to  the  common  sense  and  intuitive  perception  of  all  man- 
kind. On  the  subject  of  moral  obligation  all  men  can  see  and  do 
see  that  there  can  be  no  effect  without  a  cause.  That  nothing 
cannot  produce  something  is  an  intuitive  perception,  and  you  can- 
not help  it.  This  is  the  basis  of  that  illustrious  demonstration  by 
which  we  prove  the  being  of  a  God."  Though  this  passage  occurs 
within  a  page  of  the  one  last  quoted,  it  will  be  observed  that  the 
application  of  the  analogy  of  material  causes  and  effects  has  been 
changed  within  this  brief  compass.  In  the  first,  the  effect  was 
free  agency, — here  it  is  responsibility  or  moral  obligation.  There 
is  still  another  passage  in  which  he  says,  "  Material  causes,  while 


DR.  beecher's  theology.  173 

upheld  by  heaven,  are  adequate  to  their  proper  effects ;  and  the 
mind  of  man,  though  fallen,  is,  while  upheld,  a  cause  sufficient,  in 
respect  to  the  possibility  of  obedience,  to  create  infinite  obligation." 
Respect  for  Dr.  Beecher  restrains  us  from  employing  the  only  be- 
coming and  adequate  mode  of  exposing  such  argumentation  as 
this.  It  is  impossible  to  enter  upon  a  serious  refutation  of  the 
analogy  assumed  in  these  extracts  ;  or  to  undertake,  with  a  grave 
face,  to  prove  that  the  will,  or  the  mind  of  man,  does  not  stand  in 
the  relation  of  a  cause  to  free  agency,  responsibility,  the  possibility 
of  obedience,  or  infinite  obligation.  These  latter  terms  character- 
ize abstract  properties  or  relations  which  are  not  the  object  of 
power,  and  would  not  therefore  be  termed  effects  by  any  one  who 
was  at  all  attentive  "  to  the  right  ordering  ot  names."  Such  rea- 
soning might  be  tolerated  in  a  public  oration  before  a  promiscuous 
audience, — it  might  be  overlooked  in  a  popular  sermon, — but  it  must 
leave  its  disparaging  mark  upon  one  who  employs  it  in  a  set  expo- 
sition of  the  subject  of  free  agency,  cleared  of  the  perplexities  of 
fog  and  mist  in  which  the  schoolmen  have  involved  it.  No  one 
who  reads  the  extracts  we  have  given,  or  still  less  if  he  reads  the 
treatise  from  which  they  are  taken,  will  wonder  that  Dr.  Beecher 
should  have  felt  it  necessary  to  inform  Dr.  Porter,  and  through 
him  the  public  at  large,  that  his  method  of  philosophizing  was  the 
Baconian.* 

There  is  another  case  of  the  perversion  of  terms  in  Dr.  Beecher's 
work  more  serious  than  those  we  have  quoted,  because  it  has 
betrayed  him  into  some  erroneous  opinions.  The  phrases  natural 
ability  and  moral  ability  have  been  for  many  years  currently  em- 
ployed in  discussions  upon  the  subject  of  the  will  and  free  agency. 
Their  meaning  has  been  well  defined  by  long  usage,  and  Dr. 
Beecher  professes  to  use  them  in  their  common  acceptation.  We 
have  given  his  own  definition  of  natural  inability.  He  subse- 
quently gives,  with  approbation,  as  coincident  with  his  own, 
the  definitions  of  President  Edwards.  "We  are  said  to  be  natu- 
rally unable  to  do  a  thing  which  we  cannot  do  if  we  will, 
because  what  is  commonly  called  nature    docs   not  allow  of  it. 

*  See  Dr.  Beecher's  published  letter  to  Dr.  Porter.  In  this  letter  he  gives  this 
truly  original  definition  of  Philosophy.  "  Philosophy  is  the  nature  which  God  has 
given  to  things,  to  mind  and  to  matter  ;  with  the  laws  of  their  operation  "  He  sub- 
sequently adds,  "  If  I  understand  my  own  mode  of  philosophizing,  it  is  the  Baco- 
nian ; — facts  and  the  Bible  are  the  extent  of  my  philosophy."  The  latter  part  of  this 
sentence  is  somewhat  obscure.  He  can  hardly  mean  that  his  philosophy  embraces 
only  the  knowledge  of  facts  and  of  the  Bible,  without  regard  to  the  disposition  of  his 
knowledge  in  systematic  order.  We  suppose  he  intended  to  inform  us  that  he 
applied  to  facts  and  to  the  Bible,  the  principles  of  the  Baconian  philosophy.  We 
have  once  before,  in  a  single  instance,  met  with  the  notion  of  hnproving  theological 
science,  by  applying  to  the  Bible  the  princijdes  and  methods  of  the  inductive  philo- 
sophy. About  as  fitly  might  one  talk  of  getting  a  purer  system  of  truth  from  the 
Bible,  by  applying  to  it  the  new  method  of  boring  for  water.  It  is  to  be  wished  that 
Bacon  were  more  read  or  less  talked  about  His  name  is  getting  to  be  so  much  a 
stalking  horse  for  pretenders,  that  it  is  now  almost  a  suspicious  circumstance  to  be 
caught  making  any  use  of  it. 


174  DR.  beecher's  theology. 

Moral  inability  is  the  want  of  inclination,  or  a  contrary  incli- 
nation." The  correlate  phrases,  natural  and  moral  ability,  will  of 
course  denote,  the  one,  the  ability  which  results  from  the  posses- 
sion of  physical  powers  and  opportunities ;  the  other,  that  which 
arises  from  inclination  or  disposition.  But  Dr.  Beecher  applies 
these  terms  to  the  will  itself,  as  well  as  to  the  agent.  He  speaks 
of  the  "  natural  inability  of  the  will,"  "  the  natural  power  of  choice," 
"  the  natural  power  of  the  will,"  &c.  Had  he  paused  a  moment 
upon  these  phrases,  he  must  have  felt  that  they  were  destitute  of 
meaning.  Their  absurdity  is  at  once  made  apparent  by  substitut- 
ing the  word  will  in  the  definition  which  Dr.  Beecher  himself  gives. 
It  would  run  thus :  "  By  the  natural  inability  (of  the  will),  I  under- 
stand that  which  the  will,  though  ever  so  willing,  cannot  do,  from 
defect  of  capacity,"  that  is,  in  this  case  from  defect  of  will.  As 
it  is  important  to  get  light  upon  these  phrases,  if  any  can  be 
had,  we  will  try  whether  the  definition  which  he  has  adopted  from 
Edwards  can  help  us  to  see  what  is  meant  by  the  natural  inability 
of  the  will.  "  The  will  is  said  to  be  naturally  unable  to  do  a  thing 
which  it  cannot  do  if  it  will,  because  what  is  commonly  called 
nature  does  not  allow  of  it."  Now  as  the  question  is  only  about 
acts  of  the  will,  and  it  is  very  plain  that  if  a  thing  is  willed  it  is 
willed,  the  only  hinderance  which  nature  can  interpose  here  must 
be  by  the  destruction  of  the  will  itself  To  assert,  then,  that  a  man 
labours  under  a  natural  inability  of  will,  must  mean  that  he  is  alto- 
gether destitute  of  this  faculty.  It  is  in  like  manner  apparent  that 
the  moral  inability  of  the  will  must  mean  the  want  of  will  in  the 
will,  or  rather  that  it  has  no  intelligible  meaning  whatever. 

It  would  be  difficult,  too,  to  tell  what  can  be  meant  by  the  follow- 
ing remark :  "  The  will  is  under  no  such  necessity  as  destroys  its 
own  power  of  choice."  We  do  not  recollect  that  Dr.  Beecher  has 
defined  the  sense  in  which  he  uses  the  word  will.  He  seems,  how- 
ever, usually  to  employ  it  in  its  common  acceptation,  as  denoting, 
according  to  Locke,  "  the  power  or  ability  to  prefer  or  choose,"  or 
in  the  language  of  Edwards,  "  that  power  or  principle  of  mind  by 
which  it  is  capable  of  choosing."  What  then  can  be  intended  by 
"the  will's  own  power  of  choice,"  that  is,  by  the  power  of  choice 
possessed  by  the  mind's  power  of  choice  ?  When  we  assert  that 
an  agent  m  order  to  be  accountable  must  possess  the  power  of 
choice,  the  assertion  is  both  intelligible  and  true.  It  means  that 
the  agent  in  question  must  possess  the  faculty  of  will.  But  that 
"the  will  is  under  no  such  necessity  as  destroys  its  power  of 
choice"  can  convey  no  meaning  beyond  what  is  involved  in  the 
identical  proposition  that  the  will  is  no  longer  the  will  after  it  has 
been  destroyed.  These  instances  will  show  how  easy  it  is  in  the 
discussion  of  this  subject,  to  slide  from  the  clear  to  the  obscure, 
from  the  significant  to  the  unmeaning  ;  and  the  knowledge  of  this 
danger  to  which  he  is  exposed  should  admonish  every  ohe  who 
undertakes  the  discussion,  to  employ  all  possible  precaution  and 


DR.  beecher's  theology.  175 

vigilance.  Better  far  the  endless  niceties  of  the  scholastic  distinc- 
tions, than  this  vague,  slip-shod  use  of  terms.* 

Other  passages  might  be  produced  which  are  open  to  censure 
of  a  somewhat  lighter  kind,  as  manifesting  an  undue  predominance 
of  the  imagination  over  the  reason — passages  in  which  the  objec- 
tionable phrases  cannot,  in  strictness  of  speech,  be  pronounced 
absurd,  but  nevertheless  are  so  vague  or  hyperbolical  as  to  be 
exceedingly  out  of  place  in  a  treatise  of  this  kind.  We  quote  the 
following  specimen ;  "  There  must  exist  the  power  of  intellect, 
perception,  comparison,  judgment,  conscience,  will,  affections,  taste, 
memory,  the  discursive  power  of  thought,  the  semi-omnipotence 
of  volition,  and  those  exercises  of  soul  which  constitute  personal 
excellence  and  inspire  affection."  We  have  here,  among  the  attri- 
butes of  a  moral  agent,  the  power  of  intellect,  and  then  again,  the 
discursive  power  of  thought ;  the  will  is  not  enough, — he  must 
have  in  addition  the  semi-omnipotence  of  volition ;  affections  are 
needed,  and  then  besides  these,  the  exercises  of  soul  which  consti- 
tute personal  excellence.  One  set  of  these  phrases  might  surely 
have  been  spared.  But  Dr.  Beecher  is  seldom  satisfied  with  the 
simple,  quiet  statement  of  a  truth.  The  boisterous  exaggerations 
of  oratory  delight  him  far  more.  "The  semi-omnipotence  of  voli- 
tion," one  would  think  could  hardly  be  beaten.  But  the  following 
sentence  may  at  least  contest  the  palm  with  it :  "  The  will  of  man 
is  stronger  than  anything  in  the  universe,  except  the  Almighty 
God."  We  thought  Dr.  Taylor  had  gone  quite  far  enough  in  cha- 
racterizing the  will  as  a  "  giant  rebel,"  but  he  is  fairly  outdone  by 
Dr.  Beecher.  No  one  has  ever  given  an  intelligible  account  of 
any  active  power  that  man  can  exert,  save  to  move  the  muscles 
of  his  body,  or  to  direct  the  attention  of  his  mind,  and  that  only 
within  certain  limits.  This  beggarly  power  is  strangely  glorified 
when  clothed  in  the  princely  habiliments  of  semi-omnipotence  and 
strength  inferior  only  to  the  Almighty  God. 

The  method  of  argument  pursued  by  Dr.  Beecher,  as  might 
have  been  expected  Irom  the  looseness  of  his  phraseology,  is  inco- 
herent, d  fi'use.  and  often  self-contradictory.  One  of  his  heads  of 
argument  in  defence  of  his  theory  of  moral  agency,  is  the  Jbllow- 
ing.  "  That  man  possesses,  since  the  fall,  the  powers  of  agency 
requisite  to  obligation,  on  the  ground  of  possibility  of  obedience,  is 
a  matter  of  notoriety."  It  would  be  easy  to  point  out  a  defect  of 
precision  in  this  sentence,  but  it  is  not  for  that  purpose  wc  have 
quoted  it.     It  asserts  that  the  truth  of  his  own  opinions  on  the  sub- 

*  We  refer  Dr.  Beecher  to  the  author,  whose  method  of  philosophizing  he  thinks 
he  has  adopted,  for  the  following  weighty  sentences  :  "  Itaque  mala  et  inepta  verho- 
rum  impositio,  miris  modis  intellectum  obsidet."  "  Sed  verba  plane  vim  faciunt 
intellectui,  et  omnia  turbant."  JVov.  Organ.  Aph.  43.  He  will  find  too  this  instruct- 
ive caution  in  the  same  author's  Proficience  and  Advancement  of  Learning :  "  Here, 
therefore,  is  the  first  distemper  of  learning,  when  men  study  words  and  not  matter. 
It  seems  to  me  that  Pygmalion's  phrensy  is  a  good  emblem  of  this  fault ;  for  words  are 
but  the  images  of  matter;  and  e.xcept  they  have  life  of  reason  and  invention,  to  fall 
in  love  with  them,  is  all  one  as  to  fall  in  love  with  a  picture." 


176  DR.  beecher's  theology. 

ject  of  man's  moral  agency  is  a  matter  of  notoriety.  Then  surely 
he  might  have  spared  himself  the  trouble  of  filling  the  hundred 
pages  which  follow.  For  evidence  of  its  loose  and  declamatory 
style  of  argument,  we  must  refer  our  readers  to  the  book  itself. 
They  cannot  open  it  amiss.  We  might  almost  say  the  same  of  its 
inconsistencies.  We  select  at  random  an  instance  or  two,  illus- 
trating the  latter  feature.  The  author  repeatedly  denies  that 
motives  are,  properly  speaking,  causes  of  volition, — they  are  the 
ground,  occasion,  or  reason,  but  not  the  cause.  This  is  urged  most 
strenuously.  But  in  discussing  the  question  whether  the  word  of 
God  is  employed  as  the  instrument  in  regeneration  as  well  as  in 
conversion,  he  has  the  following  argument.  "  But  why  should  the 
efficiency  of  God  defraud  the  word  of  its  alleged  instrumentality, 
or  the  instrumentality  of  the  word  exclude  the  power  of  God  ?  Is 
the  union  of  both  impossible  ?  It  cannot  be  impossible,  because, 
unquestionably,  in  the  government  of  the  natural  world,  God's 
almightiness  is  associated  with  the  instrumentality  of  natural  causes, 
and  may  be  just  as  possibly,  if  God  pleases,  in  the  moral  world, 
associated  with  the  instrumentality  of  moral  causes  "  We  do  not 
intend  to  dispute  the  truth  of  the  opinion  advocated  in  this  passage; 
we  wish  simply  to  call  attention  to  the  argument  employed.  Why 
is  the  joint  efficiency  of  motives  and  of  the  power  of  God  possible, 
in  the  production  of  a  given  effect  upon  the  mind  ?  Because  in  the 
natural  world  the  power  of  God  acts  in  conjunction  with  natural 
causes.  Here  the  author  assumes  that  a  motive  is  a  cause,  or  at 
least  so  near  akin  to  one,  that  an  argument  may  be  founded  on  the 
similarity  in  their  mode  of  operation, — a  notion  that  he  has  been 
most  vigorously  combating  all  along  through  the  previous  pages. 
Another  example  in  the  same  kind  will  suffice  for  the  present.  In 
his  defence  of  the  natural  ability  of  man,  we  find  the  following 
observations.  "Accountability  for  personal  transgression  does 
require  some  ability  to  refuse  the  evil  and  choose  the  good.  There 
must  be  the  faculties  and  powers  of  a  free  agent,  bearing  the  rela- 
tion of  possibility  to  right  action.  Faculties  that  can  do  nothing, 
and  powers  that  have  no  refation  of  a  cause  to  its  eflfect,  in  possi- 
ble action,  are  nonentities."  Again,  he  asks,  "  Do  the  requisitions 
of  law  continue,  when  all  the  necessary  antecedents  to  obedience 
are  destroyed  ?  Has  God  required  effects  without  a  cause  ?" 
There  is  much  more  to  the  same  effect.  The  ability  to  choose 
right  is  continually  represented  as  a  cause,  of  which  the  effect  is 
variously  stated  to  be  the  possibility  of  a  right  choice,  or  right 
choice  itself.  This  power  is  magnified  and  exalted.  It  is  made 
the  basis  of  God's  moral  government,  the  essential  element  of  man's 
accountableness.  Let  the  reader  peruse  again  the  extracts  we  have 
just  given,  and  then  look  at  the  following  sop  which  Dr.  Beecher 
throws  to  the  Cerberus  of  orthodoxy,  when  he  comes  to  discuss 
the  subject  of  original  sin.  "  The  thing  to  be  accounted  for  is  the 
phenomenon  of  an  entire  series  of  universal  actual  sin  ;  and  to 
ascribe  the  universal  and  entire  obliquity  of  the  human  will  to  the 


ITf 

simple  ability  of  choosing  wrong,  is  to  ascribe  the  moral  obliquity 
of  a  lost  world  to  nothing."  It  is  certainly  impossible  for  a  man, 
who  has  only  the  ordinary  powers  of  vision,  to  see  how  the  ability 
to  choose  wrong  can  be  a  mere  nothing,  while  the  ability  to  choose 
right  is  everything.  If  one  of  these  species  of  ability  be  not  a 
sufficient  cause,  ground,  or  reason,  determining  the  mind  to  a  par- 
ticular kind  of  action,  then  the  other  cannot  be  ;  and  not  having 
the  relation  of  a  cause  to  its  effect,  it  is,  according  to  the  previous 
account  of  the  matter,  a  nonentity.  Such  are  the  mistakes  and 
contradictions  into  which  the  rhetorician  falls  when  he  undertakes 
to  deal  with  the  niceties  of  logical  reasoning.  As  an  orator.  Dr. 
Beecher  has  few  equals.  He  excels  greatly  in  popular  appeals 
from  the  pulpit,  the  platform,  and  the  press.  He  has  uncommon 
powers  of  imagination,  and  great  facility  in  gathering  from  all 
quarters  luminous  illustrations  and  bold  imagery,  to  give  to  the 
truth  a  visible  and  substantial  form.  His  stirring  notes  have  often 
reached  and  aroused  us,  and,  on  fitting  occasions,  there  is  no  one 
whose  white  plume  we  would  more  willingly  see  leading  the  van. 
But  he  mistakes  his  calling,  and  therefore  forfeits  our  confidence 
in  him  as  a  guide,  when  he  attempts  to  unravel  the  difficulties  of 
that  department  of  theology  which  is  intersected  by  metaphysical 
science.  The  same  qualities  which  raise  him  to  pre-eminent 
excellence  in  his  appropriate  sphere,  operate  rather  as  a  disqualifi- 
cation here.  The  orator  is  not  called  upon  to  use  his  words  in  a 
steady  and  determinate  sense,  approaching  the  fixed  precision  of 
mathematical  terms,  nor  is  it  necessary  that  all  his  arguments  be 
such  as  would  bear  the  test  of  severe  scrutiny.  An  analogy  will 
often  be  as  good  as  an  argument,  and  a  well-timed  metaphor 
better  than  either.  The  rigorous  exactness  which  scientific  inves- 
tigation demands,  the  cold  prudence  with  which  it  rejects  every- 
thing that  is  not  strictly  alhed  to  the  subject  in  hand,  and  the  severe 
restraint  which  it  imposes  upon  the  imagination  in  its  grasping 
after  such  sensible  forms  as  may  materialize  the  truth,  are  not 
likely  to  be  learned  in  the  school  of  oratory. 

The  extracts  which  we  have  as  yet  brought  forward  from  Dr. 
Beecher's  views  have  been  adduced  mainly  with  the  view  of  illus- 
trating the  difficulties  which  must  be  encountered  in  the  attempt  to 
discover  what  are  the  opinions  which  he  really  intends  to  avow 
and  defend.  We  have  laboriously  endeavoured  to  understand 
his  drift ;  we  are  conscious  of  an  honest  purpose  ;  and  if  the  com- 
mon cry  of  misapprehension  shall  be  raised,  we  think  Dr.  Beecher's 
obscurity  ought  at  least  to  divide  the  blame  with  our  dulness. 

To  a  cursory  reader  it  might  seem  that  Dr.  Beecher  means  to 
inculcate  nothing  more  than  the  common  doctrine  of  man's  natural 
ability.  To  all  that  he  says  which  is  strictly  applicable  as  a 
defence  of  this  doctrine  we  have  nothing  to  object.  There  is  a 
clear  and  important  distinction  between  the  inability  which  results 
from  the  defect  of  natural  faculties,  and  that  which  arises  from  the 
want  of  inclination.     According  to  the  intuitive  judgment  of  all 

12 


178 

men  an  inability  of  the  former  kind  absolves  from  all  accountable- 
ness  and  guilt.  No  man  can  be  under  an  obligation  to  perform 
any  action  which,  though  he  will  to  do  it,  is  yet  impossible*  of 
execution.  There  cannot  be  any  difference  of  opinion  on  this 
point,  where  the  terms  which  enter  into  the  discussion  are  pro- 
perly understood.  It  will  accordingly  be  found  that  in  nearly  all 
cases,  where  the  natural  ability  of  man  for  the  performance  of  his 
duty  is  denied,  there  is  a  misapprehension  of  what  is  really  meant 
by  this  form  of  statement ;  or  else  the  objector  intends  merely  to 
deny  the  suitableness  of  the  language  to  express  the  thing  signified. 
It  cannot  be  disputed  that  man  possesses  all  the  faculties  which 
are  necessary  to  constitute  him  a  free  moral  agent.  But  it  may 
be  disputed,  and  with  considerable  show  of  reason,  whether  the 
mere  possession  of  these  faculties  can  be  said,  in  strictness  of 
speech,  to  confer  upon  him  the  ability  to  change  the  moral  state  of 
his  heart,  and  perform  the  spiritual  duties  required  of  him  by  his 
Maker.  The  sole  question  here  is  respecting  the  fitness  of  the 
term  ability  in  this  connexion.  This  word,  in  its  ordinary  use, 
always  bears  a  reference  to  actual  results.  A  machine  is  able  to 
do  only  what  it  actually  will  do,  if  it  be  set  in  motion,  and  in  form- 
ing our  estimate  of  its  power  we  are  guided  by  our  observation  of 
its  eflfects  when  in  operation,  or  by  our  knowledge  of  what  has 
been  produced  heretofore  by  such  combinations  as  enter  into  its 
structure.  Man,  it  is  true,  is  not  a  machine,  nor  is  he  compelled 
like  inanimate  matter  to  exert  at  every  instant  all  the  power  which 
he  possesses.  But  while  it  would  not  be  safe,  on  this  account,  to 
infer  that  an  individual  had,  in  any  particular  instance,  put  forth 
his  whole  ability,  we  should  follow  only  our  usual  rule  of  judgment 
in  declaring  that  man  is  unable  to  do  that  which  no  one  of  the 
human  race,  however  favourably  situated,  has  ever  performed,  and 
which  it  is  admitted  no  one  ever  will  perform.  If  another  power, 
in  addition  to  man's  natural  ability,  is  always  concerned  in  his 
regeneration  and  conversion,  we  may  safely  infer  that  this  further 
power  is  necessary  to  the  production  of  the  eflfect.  And  it  is  an 
obvious  impropriety  to  call  that  an  ability  to  do  a  given  thing,  which 
yet  requires  an  additional  power  to  be  combined  with  it  to  render  it 
eflicient  in  the  production  of  its  result.*  While  we  fully  adopt,  there- 
fore, the  opinions  of  President  Edwards  upon  this  subject,  we  cannot 

*  It  is  singular  to  observe  how  absurdities  and  errors  that  have  been  reasoned  or 
laughed  out  of  existence  in  one  age  are  revived  in  another.  Much  of  the  fine  satire 
of  Pascal  has  as  keen  an  edge  for  existing  follies,  as  it  had  for  those  against  which  it 
was  oriicinally  aimed.  We  quote  the  following  detached  passages,  and  would  recom- 
mend the  reader  to  turn  to  his  Provincial  Letters,  and  read  all  that  he  has  written  on 
the  subject  of  efficacious  grace. 

•♦  My  good  friend  the  Jansenist  seemed  pleased  with  my  remarks,  and  thought  he 
had  already  gained  me.     He  said  nothing  to  me,  however,  but  turning  to  the  Father, 

•  Pray,'  said  he,  *  in  what  respects  do  you  agree  with  the  Jesuits  ?'     He  replied, 

*  In  this,  that  we  both  acknowledge  that  sufficient  grace  is  given  to  all  men.'  *  But/ 
returned  he,  '  there  are  two  things  in  the  term  sufficient  grace  ;  the  sound,  which  is 
mere  air,  and  the  sense,  which  is  real  and  significant.  So  that  when  you  avovy  an 
agreement  with  the  Jesuits  in  the  wordy  but  oppose  them  in  the  senses  it  is  obvious 
that  you  disagree  with  them  in  the  essential  matter,  though  you  accord  in  the  term. 


DR.  BEECHER*S  THEOLOGY.  179 

but  consider  his  phraseology  as  eminently  unhappy.  However 
guarded  and  explained,  it  is  still  calculated  to  mislead.  We  need  not 
go  further  for  proof  of  its  unhappy  tendency  than  to  the  writings  of 
Dr.  Beecher.  In  his  Sermon  on  Free  Agency  and  Dependence  he 
says,  "  The  moment  the  ability  of  obedience  ceases,  the  commission 
of  sin  becomes  impossible."  It  will  be  observed  that  the  ability 
which  is  here  said  to  be  essential  to  the  commission  of  sin,  is  not 

Is  this  acting  with  openness  and  sincerity  ?'  '  But,'  said  the  good  man,  •  what  cause 
of  complaint  have  you,  since  we  deceive  no  one  by  this  mode  of  speaking?  for  in  our 
schools  we  publicly  declare  that  we  understand  the  expression  in  a  sense  quite 
opposite  to  the  Jesuits.'  *  I  complain,'  said  my  friend,  •  that  you  do  not  declare  to 
all  the  world,  that  by  sufficient  grace  you  mean  a  grace  which  is  not  sufficient. 
Having  changed  the  signification  of  the  usual  terms  in  religion,  you  are  obliged  in 
conscience  to  declare,  that  when  you  admit  of  sufficient  grace  in  all  men,  you  really 
intend  that  they  have  not  sufficient  grace,' 

"  *  Christians  inquire  of  divines  what  is  the  real  condition  of  human  nature  since 
the  fall  ?  St.  Augustine  and  his  disciples  reply,  that  it  does  not  possess  sufficient 
grace,  unless  it  pleases  God  to  bestow  it.  The  Jesuits  come  forw'ard  and  assert  that 
all  do  absolutely  possess  it.  Consult  the  Dominicans  upon  this  contradictory  repre- 
sentation, and  what  is  the  consequence  ?  They  coalesce  with  the  Jesuits.  By  this 
artifice  their  numbers  appear  so  considerable  They  divide  from  those  who  deny 
sufficient  grace,  and  declare  that  all  men  have  it;  and  who  would  imagine  otherwise 
than  that  they  sanction  the  Jesuits  .>  When,  lo  !  they  proceed  to  intimate  that  the 
sufficient  grace  is  useless,  without  the  efficarious,  which  is  not  bestowed  upon  all 
men ! 

"  *  Shall  I  present  you  with  a  picture  of  the  church  amidst  these  different  senti- 
ments ?  I  consider  it  like  a  man  who,  leaving  his  native  country  to  travel  abroad,  is 
met  by  robbers  who  wound  him  so  severely  that  they  leave  him  half  dead.  He  sends 
for  three  physicians  resident  in  the  neighbourhood.  The  first,  after  probing  his 
wounds,  pronounces  them  to  be  mortal,  assuring  him  that  God  alone  can  restore  him ; 
the  second,  wishing  to  flatter  him,  declares  he  has  sufficient  strength  to  reach  home, 
and,  insulting  the  first  for  opposing  his  opinion,  threatens  to  be  the  ruin  of  him  The 
unfortunate  patient,  in  this  doubtful  condition,  as  soon  as  he  perceives  the  approach 
of  the  third,  stretches  out  his  hands  to  welcome  him  who  is  to  decide  the  dispute. 
This  physician,  upon  examining  his  wounds,  and  ascertaining  the  opinions  already 
given,  coincides  with  the  second,  and  these  coalesce  against  the  first  to  turn  him  out 
with  contempt;  and  they  now  form  the  strongest  party.  The  patient  infers  from  this 
proceeding,  that  the  third  physician  agrees  with  the  second,  and  upon  putting  the 
question,  he  assures  him  most  positively  that  his  strength  is  sufficient  for  the  pro- 
posed journey.  The  wounded  man,  however,  expatiating  upon  his  weakness,  asks 
upon  what  he  founds  his  opinion  ?  •  Why,  you  have  still  got  legs,  and  legs  are  the 
means  which,  according  to  the  constitution  of  nature,  are  sufficient  for  the  purpose 
of  walking.'  *  Very  true,'  replies  the  wounded  traveller ;  '  but  have  I  all  the  strength 
which  is  requisite  for  making  use  of  them  :  for  really  they  seem  useless  to  me  in  my 
present  languishing  condition  .-"  '  Certainly  they  are,'  returns  the  physician,  •  and 
you  never  will  be  able  to  walk  unless  God  vouchsafes  some  extraordinary  assistance 
to  sustain  and  guide  you.'  ♦  What  then,'  says  the  infirm  man,  •  have  I  not  sufficient 
strength  iit  myself  to  be  fully  able  to  walk  ?'  •  0  no,  far,  very  far  from  it '  '  Then 
you  have  a  different  opinion  from  your  friend  respecting  my  real  condition.'  *  I  can- 
didly admit  I  have.' 

**  *  What  do  you  suppose  the  wounded  man  would  say  to  this  .'  He  complains  of 
their  strange  proceeding,  and  of  the  ambiguous  language  of  this  third  physician. 
He  censures  him  for  coalescing  with  the  second,  when  he  was  in  fact  of  a  contrary 
opinion,  though  they  agreed  in  appearance,  and  for  driving  away  the  first  with  whom 
he  really  coincided  ;  and  then,  after  trying  his  strength,  and  finding  by  experience 
the  truth  of  his  weakness,  he  dismisses  them  both,  and,  recalling  the  first,  puts  him- 
self under  his  care,  follows  his  advice,  and  prays  to  God  for  the  strength  which  he 
confesses  he  needs.  His  petitions  are  heard,  and  he  ultimately  returns  home  in 
peace.' " 

Has  not  the  time  nearly  or  quite  arrived  in  our  church,  when  sober  argument  hav- 
ing accomplished  all  that  it  can  do,  the  pen  of  satire  becomes  a  legitimate  and  effec- 
tive weapon }  Is  there  not  some  Pascal  among  us,  who  will  come  forth  to  castigate 
the  follies  of  the  day  ? 


180  DR. 

qualified  by  the  epithet  natural.  The  declaration  is  as  broad  as  it 
could  be  made  ;  and  it  seems  to  us  impossible  to  pen  a  sentence 
which  would  more  palpably  conflict  with  the  plain  language  of  the 
Scriptures  upon  this  subject,  or  more  directly  tend  to  absolve  the 
sinner  from  the  terrors  of  an  evil  conscience.  Every  sinner  knows 
that  his  ability  to  obey,  using  these  words  according  to  their  ordi- 
nary meaning,  is  lessened  by  every  sin  that  he  commits.  The 
more  profligate  he  becomes,  the  less  able  is  he  to  rise  from  the 
depths  into  which  he  has  sunk.  Hovi^  comforting  to  him  to  hear 
that  as  his  ability  is  thus  diminishing  his  sins  are  becoming  less 
criminal,  and  that  when  he  has  become  so  depraved  that  he  can  no 
more  recover  himself  than  the  Ethiopian  can  change  his  skin,  then 
he  can  no  longer  commit  sin  !  Dr.  Beecher  would  of  course 
explain  by  saying  that  he  meant  only  natural  ability.  But  the  sen- 
tence as  it  now  stands  is  at  least  ambiguous,  and  in  one  of  its 
senses,  and  that  one  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  ordinary  use  of 
language,  it  is  untrue  and  dangerous.  It  is  no  small  objection  to 
the  use  of  the  phrase,  natural  ability,  that  such  a  man  as  Dr. 
Beecher  should  have  been  led  by  it  to  preach  in  a  style  so  well 
adapted  to  lead  his  hearers  into  serious  error.  In  the  same  Sermon 
we  find  the  following  still  more  alarming  sentence.  "  And  most 
blessed  and  glorious,  I  am  confident,  will  be  the  result  when  her 
ministry  everywhere  shall  rightly  understand  and  teach,  and  their 
hearers  shall  universally  admit,  the  full  ability  of  every  sinner  to 
comply  with  the  terms  of  salvation."  Could  Edwards  have  foreseen 
that  such  a  declaration  as  this  would  have  grown  out  of  the  phrase- 
ology which  he  cast  around  this  subject,  he  would  surely  have 
paused  and  sought  some  less  beguiling  words.  But  he  could  not 
have  anticipated  that  from  his  effort  to  overthrow  Arminianism  there 
would  arise  the  very  error  he  was  combating,  or  something  worse. 
Had  it  been  Dr.  Beecher's  intention  to  announce  the  opinion  com- 
monly held  by  Pelagians  respecting  man's  ability,  could  he  have 
taught  it  except  in  words  of  equivalent  import  with  those  in  the  pas- 
sage above  quoted  ?  Would  not  the  "  full  ability  of  every  sinner  to 
comply  with  the  terms  of  salvation"  be  naturally  understood  to 
mean  all  ability  of  whatever  kind  that  is  necessary  to  the  end  in 
view  ?  And  if  the  sinner  has  within  himself  all  the  ability  that  is 
requisite,  with  what  propriety  can  it  be  said  that  the  influence  of 
the  Spirit  is  necessary  ?  We  quote  another  passage  to  the  same 
eflect  from  Dr.  Beecher's  Sermon  on  the  Failh  once  delivered  to 
the  saints.  "Men  are  free  agents,  possessed  of  such  faculties,  and 
placed  in  such  circumstances,  as  render  it  practicable  for  them  to 
do  whatever  God  requires."  It  will  be  seen  that  the  same  doctrine 
of  plenary  ability  is  here  taught,  though  in  a  somewhat  stronger 
form.  Without  attempting  to  define  the  precise  difference  between 
the  two  words,  practicable  and  possible,  it  will  be  admitted  that 
the  former  conveys  a  lower  idea  of  the  difficulty  to  be  overcome 
than  the  latter.  No  aid  is  ever  deemed  necessary  to  enable  a  man 
to  accomplish  a  practicable  enterprise.     And  if  it  is  practicable  for 


DR. 


181 


man  to  do  all  that  God  requires,  then  is  he  cast  upon  his  own 
resources,  independent  of  any  help  from  without.  Will  Dr.  Beecher 
reply  that  the  influences  of  the  Spirit  are  necessary  not  to  make 
him  able,  but  to  render  him  willing  ?  We  reply,  that  if  they  are  in 
any  sense,  or  for  any  reason,  necessary,  it  is  a  gross  perversion  of 
language  to  say  that  the  work,  for  the  accomplishment  of  which 
they  are  necessary,  is  practicable  without  them.  And  besides  this, 
the  sinner's  willingness  constitutes  the  chief  element  in  the  practi- 
cableness  of  his  duty.  These  extracts  from  Dr.  Beecher*s  sermons 
show  that  he  has  given  sufficient  reason  for  ranking  him  with  the 
modern  improvers  of  the  Edwardean  theory  of  natural  and  moral 
ability.  The  characteristic  mark  of  these  improvers  is  that  they 
reject,  as  Dr.  Belcher  does,  the  terms  natural  and  moral,  and 
assert  without  qualification  that  man  possesses  all  the  ability  which 
is  requisite  for  discharging  the  duties  required  of  him.  We  have 
never  heard  from  any  of  them  stronger  statements  on  this  point 
than  those  we  have  quoted  from  Dr.  Beecher ;  and  if  he  contends 
that  he  meant  to  teach  only  the  natural  ability  of  the  sinner,  we 
take  the  liberty  of  exhorting  him  to  be,  in  future,  less  reckless  in 
his  use  of  words. 

If  further  proof  is  wanted  that  the  doctrine  taught  by  Dr. 
Beecher  in  these  extracts  from  his  sermons  is  not  the  natural 
ability  of  the  New  England  theologians,  it  may  easily  be  furnished 
from  the  writings  of  Edwards.  Dr.  Beecher  teaches  that  the 
sinner  must  possess  "  full  ability"  to  do  all  his  duty,  so  that  if  there 
be  anything  which  he  has  not  suflicient  power  to  perform,  he 
cannot  be  under  any  obligation  to  do  it.  Full  ability,  commen- 
surate with  requirement,  he  represents  as  the  only  equitable  foun- 
dation of  God's  moral  government.  How  wide  this  is  from  the 
notions  of  Edwards  on  natural  ability,  may  be  inferred  from  the 
following  passage,  which  is  found  in  his  work  on  Original  Sin,  in 
the  course  of  his  argument  against  the  Pelagian  opinions  of  Dr 
Taylor  of  Norwich.  "  It  will  follow  on  our  author's  principles, 
not  only  with  respect  to  infants,  but  even  adult  persons,  that 
redemption  is  needless,  and  Christ  is  dead  in  vain.  Not  only  is 
there  no  need  of  Christ's  redemption  in  order  to  deliverance  from 
any  consequences  of  Adam's  sin,  but  also  in  order  to  perfect 
freedom  from  personal  sin  and  all  its  evil  consequences.  For  God 
has  made  other  sufficient  provision  for  that,  viz.  a  sufficient  power 
and  ability  in  all  mankind  to  do  all  their  duty,  and  wholly  to  avoid 
sin.  Yea,  he  insists  'ipon  it,  that  when  *men  have  not  suflicient 
power  to  do  their  duty,  hey  have  no  duty  to  do.  We  may  safely 
and  assuredly  conclude  (says  he)  that  mankind,  in  all  parts  of  the 
world,  have  sufficient  power  to  do  the  duty  which  God  requires  of 
them ;  and  that  he  requires  of  them  no  more  than  they  have 
sufficient  powers  to  do.'  And  in  another  place,  'God  has  given 
powers  equal  to  the  duty  which  he  expects.'  These  things  fully 
imply,  that  men  have,  in  their  own  natural  ability,  sufficient  means 
to  avoid  sin,  and  to  be  perfectly  free  from  it.     And  if  the  means 


182 

are  sufficient,  then  is  there  no  need  of  moret  and  thereforc  there  is 
no  need  of  Christ's  dying  in  order  to  it."*  The  principles  of  the 
celebrated  champion  of  Pelagianism,  which  are  here  controverted, 
are  precisely  those  of  Dr.  Beecher.  We  can  conceive  of  no 
jugglery  upon  his  words  which  can  possibly  separate  between 
them.  And  so  far  are  these  doctrines  from  being  coincident  with 
the  views  of  Edwards,  that  he  rejects  them  with  abhorrence,  as 
tending  to  make  the  death  of  Christ  of  none  effect.  And  yet  these 
are  the  doctrines  for  which  the  sanction  of  his  venerable  name  is 
now  invoked  ! 

A  careful  examination  of  Dr.  Beecher's  views  will  make  it 
evident  that  he  still  teaches  a  different  doctrine  from  what  is  com- 
monly understood  by  man's  natural  ability.  While  his  professed 
object  is  to  defend  this  doctrine,  he  slips  in  some  important  additions 
of  his  own.  At  the  very  outset  of  his  discussion,  in  stating  the 
question  at  issue,  he  places  himself  in  direct  opposition  to  Edwards. 
"  The  point  at  issue,"  he  says,  "  is,  in  what  manner  the  certainty  of 
the  continuous  wrong  action  of  the  mind  comes  to  pass  ?  Does  it 
come  to  pass  coerced  or  uncoerced  by  necessity  ?  Does  fallen 
man  choose,  under  the  influence  of  such  a  constitution  of  body  and 
mind  and  motive,  that  every  volition  bears  the  relation  of  an  effect 
to  a  natural  and  necessary  cause,  rendering  any  other  choice  than 
the  one  which  comes  to  pass  impossible,  under  existing  circum- 
stances  ?"  Again  he  says,  "  The  question  of  free-will  is  not  whether 
man  chooses — this  is  notorious,nonedenyit— but  whether  his  choice 
is  free,  as  opposed  to  a  fatal  necessity."  He  contends  throughout, 
that  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  man  is  a  free  agent,  we  must  inquire 
into  the  causes  of  his  volitions,  and  see  whether  they  are  necessary 
in  their  operation  ;  and  that  to  render  him  accountable  it  is  not 
sufficient  that  his  actions  are  voluntary — his  will  also  must  be  free. 
Let  us  compare  this  notion  of  freedom  with  that  given  by  Edwards. 
"  But  one  thing  more  I  would  observe  concerning  what  is  vulgarly 
called  Liberty ;  namely,  that  power  and  opportunity  to  do  and 
conduct  as  he  will,  is  all  that  is  meant  by  it ;  without  taking  into 
the  meaning  of  the  word  anything  of  the  cause  of  that  choice,  or 
at  all  considering  how  the  person  came  to  have  such  a  volition ; 
whether  it  was  caused  by  some  external  motive  or  internal 
habitual  bias ;  whether  it  was  determined  by  some  internal 
antecedent  volition,  or  whether  it  happened  without  a  cause ; 
whether  it  was  necessarily  connected  with  something  foregoing, 
or  not  connected.  Let  the  person  come  by  his  choice  any  how, 
yet,  if  he  is  able,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  way  to  hinder  his  pur- 
suing and  executing  his  will,  the  man  is  perfectly  free,  according 
to  the  primary  and  common  notion  of  freedom."t  "  Liberty  is  the 
power,  opportunity,  or  advantage  that  any  one  has  of  doing  as  he 
pleases,  or  conducting  himself  in  any  respect  according  to  his 
pleasure,  without  considering  how  his  pleasure  comes  to  be  as  it  i5."  J 

*  Edwards's  Works,  vol  ii.,  p.  515. 

t  Freedom  of  the  Will,  p.  39.  J  Ibid.,  p.  291. 


DR.  beecher's  theology.  183 

The  ground  of  blame-worthiness  too,  as  stated  by  Edwards,  is 
essentially  different  from  that  given  by  Dr.  Beecher.  The  latter 
requires,  in  addition  to  voluntariness,  that  the  agent  should  possess 
the  power  of  controlling  his  own  choice.  But  Edwards  says,  *'  The 
idea  which  the  common  people  through  all  ages  and  nations  have 
of  faultiness,  I  suppose  to  be  plainly  this  ;  a  person  being  or  doing 
wrong  with  his  own  will  and  pleasure," — he  adds,  "  and  this  is  the 
sum  total  of  the  matter." 

A  few  more  extracts  from  Dr.  Beecher  will  show  that  he  advo- 
cates, sometimes  at  least,  a  theory  very  different  from  that  of  Ed  wards 
and  of  Calvinistic  writers  in  general,  respecting  natural  ability. 
"  Choice,"  he  says,  "  in  its  very  nature,  implies  the  possibility  of  a 
different  or  contrary  election  to  that  which  is  made.  There  is 
always  an  alternative  to  that  which  the  mind  decides  on,  with  the 
conscious  power  of  choosing  either."  He  states  the  question  in 
debate  respecting  man's  freedom  to  be,  "  whether  it  (his  choice)  is 
the  act  of  an  agent  who  might  have  abstained  from  the  choice 
he  made,  and  made  one  which  he  did  not."  He  speaks  very  often 
of  the  necessity  that  man  should  possess  what  he  calls  the  power 
of  choice,  with  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  in  order  to  constitute 
him  a  responsible  agent.  *'  But  if  any  man  does  not  possess  the 
power  of  choice,  with  power  to  the  contrary,  he  sees  and  feels  that 
he  is  not  to  blame  ;  and  you  cannot,  with  more  inliiUible  cer- 
tainty, make  men  believe  and  fix  them  in  the  belief  that  they  are  not 
responsible,  than  to  teach  them  that  they  have  not  the  power  of 
alternative  election."  Speaking  of  a  man  co#imitting  some  sin, 
he  asks,  "  When  he  has  done  it,  does  he  not  know,  does  he  not  feel 
that  he  could  have  chosen  the  other  way  ?"  He  affirms  that  man's 
"  obligation  to  choose  good  and  refuse  the  evil,  originates  in  his 
constitutional  power  of  choice,  with  power  of  contrary  choice."  He 
contends  that  the  supposition,  "  that  man  is  not  after  all  able  to  modify 
and  diversify  his  choice  indefinitely,  &c.,  destroys  the  credibility 
of  the  Bible  as  an  inspired  book  ;"  since  the  Bible  assumes  "every- 
where that  man  is  free  to  choose  with  power  of  contrary  choice." 
He  speaks  repeatedly  of  the  necessity  of  determining  whether 
"choice  is  free  ;"  whether  man  "in  his  mode  of  voluntary  action, 
is  coerced  or  free"  &c.,  in  order  to  settle  the  question  of  his  free 
agency  and  responsibility. 

It  is  not  a  little  surprising  that  in  the  book  which  contains  these 
passages,  Dr.  Beecher  should  quote  from  Edwards,  thus  showing 
that  he  had  read  at  least  some  part  of  his  Treatise  on  the  Will,  and 
yet  claim  agreement  with  him  on  the  subject  of  free  agency.  Re- 
specting the  power  of  the  will  to  choose  differently  from  what  it 
actually  does,  we  quote  the  following  passage  from  Edwards. 
After  the  definition  of  liberty  which  we  have  already  quoted,  he 
adds  :  *'  And  I  scruple  not  to  say,  it  is  beyond  all  their  wits  to 
invent  a  higher  notion  or  form  a  higher  imagination  of  liberty  :  let 
them  talk  of  sovereignty  of  the  will,  self-determining  power,  self- 
motion,  self-direction,  arbitrary  decision,  liberty  ad  uti'um vis,  ^oi^jcr 


184  DR.  beecher's  theology. 

of  choosing  differently  in  given  cases,  &c.,  as  long  as  they  will.  It 
is  apparent  that  these  men,  in  their  strenuous  dispute  about  these 
things,  aim  at  they  know  not  what,  fighting  for  something  that  they 
have  no  conception  of,  substituting  a  number  of  confused,  unmean- 
ing words  instead  of  things  and  instead  of  thoughts.  They  may 
be  challenged  clearly  to  explain  what  they  would  have,  but  they 
never  can  answer  the  challenge."  And  in  relation  to  the  liberty  of 
the  will  which  Dr.  Beecher  maintains  to  be  vitally  essential  to  free 
agency,  Edwards  has  the  following  remarks.  "  In  strict  propriety 
of  speech,  neither  liberty,  nor  its  contrary,  can  properly  be  ascribed 
to  any  being  or  thing  but  that  which  has  such  a  faculty,  power  or 
property,  as  is  called  will.  For  that  which  is  possessed  of  no  will, 
cannot  have  any  power  or  opportunity  of  doing  according  to  its 
will,  nor  be  necessitated  to  act  contrary  to  its  will,  nor  be  restrained 
from  acting  agreeably  to  it.  And  therefore  to  talk  of  liberty  or  the 
contrary  as  belonging  to  the  very  will  itself,  is  not  to  speak  good 
sense."  The  question  whether  the  will  itself  is  coerced  or  free, 
which  Dr.  Beecher  maintains  to  be  the  only  question  in  debate, 
Edwards  refuses  to  entertain,  pronouncing  it  to  be  not  good  sense. 
The  power  of  choosing  differently  in  given  cases,  which  Dr. 
Beecher  holds  to  be  essential  to  moral  agency,  is,  according  to 
Edwards,  a  thing  of  which  we  can  form  no  conception,  a  confused, 
unmeaning  jumble  of  words.  The  inquiry  which  Dr.  Beecher  con- 
tends that  we  must  institute  into  the  causes  of  choice,  in  order  to 
ascertain  whether  it  be  free  or  not,  before  we  can  attribute  blame- 
worthiness, is  rejeAed  by  Edwards  and  by  all  Calvinistic  writers, 
for  the  reason  already  given,  that  the  question  whether  the  will  is 
free,  is  nonsense,  and  also  because  when  the  other  conditions  neces- 
sary to  constitute  a  moral  act  are  present,  it  is  sufficient  that  the 
agent  be  voluntary  to  render  him  accountable.  Whatever  agree- 
ment there  may  be  between  Dr.  Beecher  and  "  the  ablest  writers  on 
free  agency"  in  the  final  results  of  their  reasoning,  it  is  apparent  that 
there  is  rather  a  startling  diflference  in  some  of  their  first  principles. 
We  have  shown  with  whom  Dr.  Beecher,  in  the  extracts 
which  we  have  given,  does  not  agree.  We  will  now  show 
with  whom  he  does  agree.  Dr.  Reid  gives  the  following 
definition  of  liberty.  "  By  the  liberty  of  a  moral  agent,  I  under- 
stand a  power  over  the  determinations  of  his  own  will.  If  in  any 
action  he  had  power  to  will  what  he  did,  or  not  to  will  it,  in  that 
action  he  is  free.  But  if,  in  every  voluntary  action,  the  determina- 
tion of  his  will  be  the  necessary  consequence  of  something  involun- 
tary in  the  state  of  his  mind,  or  of  something  in  his  external  circum- 
stances, he  is  not  free  ;  he  has  not  what  I  call  the  liberty  of  a  moral 
agent,  but  is  subject  to  necessity."*  This  is  the  definition  of  liberty 
which  has  been  substantially  adopted  by  all  subsequent  Arminian 
and  Pelagian  writers  upon  the  will ;  and  granting  them  their  defi- 
nition, we  know  not  how  to  resist  their  conclusion.     And  we  can 

♦  Reid'8  Works,  vol.  iii.,  p.  326. 


DR.  beecher's  theology.  185 

see  no  difference  between  the  idea  of  liberty  which  is  here  taught, 
and  that  for  which  Dr.  Beecher  so  strenuously  contends.  He  main- 
tains explicitly  that  it  is  not  enough  that  man  chooses,  and  is  not 
hindered  from  acting  according  to  his  preference,  to  constitute  him 
a  free  agent ;  he  must  possess  also  a  power  over  the  determinations 
of  his  will,  so  that  in  any  given  case  he  might  have  chosen  differ- 
ently. We  might  quote  abundantly  from  other  writers  than  Reid 
to  prove  that  Dr.  Beecher's  notion  of  liberty  is  precisely  that  which 
is  taught  by  Arminians  and  Pelagians  in  general ;  but  we  will  refer, 
in  addition,  only  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Haven  divines.  This 
same  idea  of  liberty  runs  through  all  Dr.  Taylor's  writings  in  the 
Christian  Spectator.  It  is  succinctly  expressed  in  the  following 
sentence.  "  They  (theologians)  have  supposed  it  to  be  impossible 
for  God  to  foreknow  the  actions  of  a  tinily  free  agent,  that  is,  of  one 
who,  whatever  may  be  his  choice  in  a  given  case,  was  entirely 
able  to  make  the  contrary  choice."*  It  has  always  hereto- 
fore been  supposed  by  the  most  competent  judges  that  the 
notion  of  moral  liberty,  which  includes  in  it  this  power  over 
the  determinations  of  the  will,  was  inconsistent  with  the  Calvin- 
istic  scheme.  If  Dr.  Beecher  has  discovered  their  consistency, 
he  ought,  in  justice  to  his  own  reputation,  to  withdraw  the  ac- 
knowledgment, which  was  doubtless  prompted  by  his  modesty, 
that  "  he  had  no  new  discoveries  to  announce."  He  has,  in  truth, 
made  one  of  the  most  wonderful  discoveries  of  the  age.  We 
are  inclined  to  think,  however,  that  it  ought  to  be  ranked  as  an 
invention  rather  than  a  discovery.  And  as  in  the  case  of  many 
other  inventions,  though  the  ingenious  author  seems  to  place  great 
confidence  in  it,  we  are  disposed  to  see  how  it  will  work  before  we 
adopt  it.  In  the  meantime  we  admit  and  feel,  that  Dr.  Beecher's 
own  case  furnishes  a  stronger  argument  than  we  had  thought  it 
possible  to  produce  in  favour  of  some  extraordinary  kind  of  liberty 
possessed  by  man ;  since  he  has  shown  by  his  own  example  that 
the  Pelagian  philosophy  of  the  will  can  be  held  in  unison  with  the 
doctrines  of  Calvinism. f 

From  the  specimens  which  we  have  giveTi  of  Dr.  Beecher's 
looseness  and  inaccuracy  in  reasoning,  it  will  not  be  expected  that 
he  should  trace  out  very  clearly  the  connexion  between  the  different 
parts  of  his  system  so  as  to  show  their  mutual  coherency.  On 
the  contrary,  such  sentences  and  phrases  as  we  have  quoted  are 
often  found  in  close  connexion  with  others  entirely  different  in 
their  meaning,  and  yet  given  as  if  they  were  of  equivalent  import. 
The  natural  ability  of  choice,  the  natural  ability  of  the  will  in 
respect  to  the  power  of  choice,  and  the  natural  ability  of  man,  are 
used  interchangeably,  without  any  apparent  suspicion  on  the  part 

*  Christian  Spectator,  vol.  iii.,  p.  469. 

t  A  German  author  has  recently  obtained  two  prizes,  one  for  an  essay  in  defence 
of  the  medical  theory  of  homoeopathy,  the  other  for  an  essay  against  the  same  theory. 
This  exploit,  however,  is  by  no  means  equal  to  that  which  Dr.  Beecher  aims  to 
accomplish.  The  German  did  not  aspire  to  obtain  a  favourable  verdict  upon  both 
his  essays  from  the  same  body  of  meo, 


186 

of  the  author  that  he  is  not  describing  the  same  thing  by  each  of 
these  phrases.  The  question  of  free  agency,  which  he  generally 
states  to  be  the  question  whether  man's  will  is  free  in  such  a  sense 
that  he  always  has  power  to  make  a  contrary  choice  to  the  one 
actually  made,  is  sometimes  represented  as  involving  only  the 
inquiry  whether  man  has  liberty  to  act  according  to  his  will.  By 
thus  interchanging  phrases  of  different  import,  and  shifting  the 
question  at  the  proper  turn,  he  is  enabled  to  array  upon  his  side  a 
formidable  list  of  authorities  from  the  days  of  the  fathers  down  to 
the  present  generation.  Any  theory  of  moral  agency  might  be 
thus  confirmed  by  first  assuming  that  it  is  the  only  true  or  possible 
theory,  and  then  quoting  in  its  support  every  author  who  has 
taught  that  man  is  a  moral  agent. 

We  proceed  to  examine,  somewhat  more  in  detail,  the  peculiar- 
ities of  Dr.  Beecher's  theory.  Under  the  strange,  and  to  us 
unmeaning  head,  of  "  fatality  of  choice,"  we  have  the  following 
paragraph:  "The  question  of  free-will  is  not  whether  man  chooses 
•^-this  is  notorious,  none  deny  it ;  but  whether  his  choice  is  free 
as  opposed  to  a  fatal  necessity — as  opposed  to  the  laws  of  instinct 
and  natural  causation ;  whether  it  is  the  act  of  a  mind  so  qualified 
for  choice  as  to  decide  between  alternatives,  uncoerced  by  the 
energy  of  a  natural  cause  to  its  effect ;  whether  it  is  the  act  of  an 
agent  who  might  have  abstained  from  the  choice  he  made,  and 
made  one  which  he  did  not.  To  speak  of  choice  being  free,  which 
is  produced  by  the  laws  of  a  natural  necessity,  and  which  cannot 
but  be  when  and  what  it  is,  more  than  the  effects  of  natural  causes 
can  govern  the  time  and  manner  and  qualities  of  their  being,  is  a 
perversion  of  language."  We  quote  the  following  additional  pas- 
sages in  connexion  with  this.  "  That  choice  is  in  accordance  with 
the  state  of  body  and  mind  and  character  and  external  circum- 
stances may  be  admitted,  or  that  it  is  as  the  greatest  apparent  good, 
may  be  admitted ;  but  that  it  is  so  necessarily,  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
ability  of  any  kind  to  be  other  than  it  is,  cannot  be  admitted  without 
abandoning  the  field  of  God's  government  of  accountable  crea- 
tures, and  going  to  the  centre  of  fatalism."  "  If  obedience  to  com- 
mands, exhortations  and  entreaties,  is  prevented  by  a  constitutional 
necessity,  a  natural  impossibility  of  choosing  right ;  and  the  diso- 
bedient choice  is  also  the  unavoidable,  coerced  result  of  a  consti- 
tutional necessity,  over  which  the  will  has  no  power,  but  of  which 
it  is  the  unavoidable  effect ;  then  choice  is  as  much  the  effect  of  a 
natural  cause,  as  any  other  natural  effect."  These  extracts  pre- 
sent the  question  in  debate  in  the  form  which  is  usually  given  to  it 
by  Dr.  Beecher,  except  when  some  authority  is  to  be  adduced. 
The  inquiry  raised  is  whether  choice  is  free.  He  must  of  course 
mean  by  choice,  in  this  connexion,  the  power  of  choice,  or  the  will. 
We  have  already  given  the  decision  of  Edwards  respecting  this 
question,  that  it  is  "not  good  sense,"  since  liberty  must  be  the  attri- 
bute of  an  agent,  and  not  of  a  faculty.  Both  Locke  and  Hobbes 
had  previously  made  a  similar  remark.     It  would  be  difficult  for 


1^ 


DR.  beecher's  theology.  187 

Dr.  Beecher  to  give  any  intelligible  definition  of  liberty  which 
would  not  show  the  absurdity  of  his  form  of  stating  the  question. 
Hobbes  defines  a  free  agent  to  be  "  he  that  can  do  if  he  will,  and 
forbear  if  he  will."  And  this  is  substantially  the  definition  which 
has  been  given  by  Leibnitz,  by  Collins,  and  by  Edwards,  and  all 
Calvinistic  writers.  We  derive  our  notion  of  freedom  from  the 
dependency  of  our  actions  upon  our  volitions.  If^  when  we  will  a 
particular  act,  the  act  follows,  we  are  free.  This  is  the  primary, 
original  notion  of  freedom.  Liberty  then  can  be  affirmed  with 
propriety  only  of  agents  that  are  possessed  of  a  will,  and  in  rela- 
tion to  such  actions  as  are  consequent  upon  volition.  We  do 
indeed,  in  common  language,  attribute  liberty  to  inanimate  objects, 
as  when  we  say  of  a  stone  that  it  descends  freely  ;  but  this  is  only 
in  accommodation,  and  from  an  analogy  suggested  by  another  idea 
involved  in  the  liberty  of  an  agent,  that  he  is  subject  to  no  impedi- 
ment extrinsic  to  himself.  If  a  man  is  bound  hand  and  foot,  or 
held  by  a  superior  muscular  force  to  his  own,  we  say  he  is  not  free 
to  move  ;  but  if  he  is  lame,  or  confined  to  his  couch  by  disease, 
he  does  not  want  liberty  but  power  or  strength  to  move.  It  is  in 
analogy- with  this  idea  that  we  say  of  inanimate  objects  that  they 
act  freely,  meaning  thereby  that  there  is  no  external  impediment 
to  hinder  them  from  acting  according  to  their  intrinsic  quahties. 
We  think  it  will  be  found,  upon  examination,  that  in  every  sup- 
posable  case  in  which  we  can  properly  affirm  that  an  agent  is  free, 
there  is  involved  the  idea  that  the  impediment  denied  is  without 
himself.  If  this  be  correct,  then  we  may  give  this  definition  of  a 
free  agent,  one  who  is  not  hindered  by  any  extrinsic  impediment 
from  acting  according  to  his  own  will.  How  then  can  we  raise 
the  question  whether  the  will  itself  be  free  ?  In  order  to  this,  we 
must  suppose  each  volition  to  be  the  eflfect  of  a  previous  volition. 
But  we  never  will  to  will.  "Proprie  loquendo  volumus  agere, 
non  vero  volumus  velle  ;  alioqui  dicere  etiam  possemus,  velle  nos 
habere  voluntatem  volendi,  quod  in  infinitum  abiret."*  And  besides 
this,  whatever  hinderances  can  be  supposed  to  force  or  impede  the 
will  must  be  within  itself,  and  if  it  labours  under  any  difficulty  there- 
fore, it  must  be  from  a  defect  of  power,  not  of  freedom. 

In  entire  consistency  with  this  confusion  at  the  outset,  we  find 
him  in  a  subsequent  sentence  speaking  of  the  choice  itself  not  hav- 
ing power  to  be  other  than  what  it  is,  any  more  than  eflfects  in  the 
physical  world  can  control  their  causes  !  And  yet  again  he  speaks 
of  the  "disobedient  choice  being  the  unavoidable  result  of  a  con- 
stitutional necessity  over  which  the  will  has  no  power,  but  of 
which  it  is  the  unavoidable  eflfect."  Here  choice  and  the  faculty 
of  will  are  each  made  the  efiect  of  necessity,  or  else  in  two 
dependent  members  of  the  same  sentence  the  word  will  in  the  one 
denotes  the  faculty  known  by  that  name,  while  in  the  other  the 

*  Leibnitzii  Opera,  torn,  i.,  p.  136. 


188 

pronoun  which  refers  to  it  denotes  not  the  will,  but  a  volition  or 
act  of  the  will. 

There  are  still  further  difficulties  attending  the  interpretation  of 
these  passages.  Dr.  Beecher  denies  that  choice  (the  will)  is  sub- 
ject to  necessity.  When  we  look  further  to  see  what  this  nneans, 
we  find  it  sonnetimes  described  as  a  fatal,  unavoidable  and  irre- 
sistible necessity.  And  quite  as  often  it  is  said  that  the  will  is  not 
free  if  the  cause  which  influences  its  volitions  be  a  natural  or  con- 
stitutional cause.  We  should  naturally  be  led  to  conclude  that,  in 
Dr.  Beecher's  opinion,  a  natural  or  constitutional  cause  established 
a  fatal  necessity.  But  let  his  readers  beware  how  they  attempt  to 
interpret  Dr.  Beecher  by  comparing  him  with  himself.  He  him- 
self elsewhere  teaches  that  the  cause  which  determines  man's  will 
to  a  particular  kind  of  action  is  both  natural  and  constitutional. 
He  says,  "  I  hold  and  teach  that  such  a  change  in  the  constitution 
of  man  was  produced  by  the  fall  as  creates  a  universal  and  preva- 
lent propensity  to  actual  sin,  preventing  in  all  men  the  existence 
of  holiness,  and  securing  the  existence  of  actual  total  depravity." 
Speaking  elsewhere  of  this  same  cause  he  calls  it  "  a  prevalent 
bias  of  nature."  And  again  he  says,  "  This  im potency  of  will  to 
good,  according  to  the  Bible,  and  our  Confession,  and  the  received 
doctrines  of  the  church,  includes  the  constitutional  bias  to  actual 
sin,  produced  in  all  men  by  the  fall,  anterior  to  intelligent,  volun- 
tary action."  We  here  have  the  determining  cause  of  volition  in 
fallen  man  styled  a  bias  of  nature,  and  a  constitutional  bias.  The 
will,  then,  being  operated  upon  by  a  natural  and  constitutional 
cause,  is  subject  to  a  fatal  necessity  ;  it  is  not  free,  and  no  respon- 
sibility attaches  to  any  of  its  acts.  This  contradiction  is  to  be 
avoided  only  by  the  plea  that  the  terms  constitutional  and  natural  are 
used  in  different  senses  in  the  two  cases.  Doubtless  they  are,  but 
it  is  to  be  regretted  that  they  should  be  used  to  convey  such  opposite 
meanings,  without  any  notice  of  a  change  of  signification,  or  any 
attempt  in  either  case  to  define  the  sense  in  which  they  are  employed. 
This  is  the  more  to  be  regretted,  because  when  Dr.  Beecher  asserts 
that  if  choice  be  the  product  of  a  necessity  of  nature,  man  can- 
not be  an  accountable  agent — if  instead  of  bringing  argument 
after  argument  to  prove  it,  he  had  simply  defined  what  he  meant 
by  nature,  he  would  have  saved  himself  all  further  trouble  upon  this 
point.  He  cannot  mean  that  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  nature 
of  things  in  general,  or  of  the  will  in  particular,  that  it  should  be 
moved  by  the  causes  which  act  upon  it.  Nor  will  he  deny  that 
there  is  any  less  certainty,  the  state  of  mind  of  the  agent,  his  sus- 
ceptibilities, and  all  the  circumstances  under  which  he  acts  being 
known,  that  a  particular  volition  will  follow,  than  that  any  physi- 
cal cause  will  be  succeeded  by  its  appropriate  effect.  Nature  is 
often  used  to  denote  the  settled  order  of  things  which  we  observe 
in  the  world  around  us.  An  event  is  said  to  be  natural,  or  to  be 
according  to  the  course  of  nature,  when  it  is  seen  to  be  regularly 
connected  with  its  cause,  and  in  harmony  with  the  manner  of  sue- 


DR.    BEECHER  S    THEOLOGY. 


18d 


cession  which  we  observe  in  other  things.  And  it  is  called  unna- 
tural when  it  seems,  through  our  ignorance,  to  fall  without  the 
ordinary  fixed  course  of  things,  or  to  vary  greatly  from  the  esta- 
blished order  of  similar  events.  But  the  laws  which  govern  the 
will  are  as  invariable  as  those  which  govern  matter,  and  whatever 
distinction  exists  between  them  must  be  sought  elsewhere  than  in 
respect  to  the  regularity  of  their  operation.  But  there  is  a  sense 
of  the  word  nature  in  which  Dr.  Beecher's  declaration  contains  a 
truth,  though  certainly  a  very  harmless  one,  to  any  conflicting  the- 
ory of  morals.  This  word  is  frequently  employed  to  signify  the 
assemblage  of  material  causes  which  are  continually  working  their 
effects  around  us.  Numberless  changes  are  every  moment  occur- 
ring to  which  the  will  of  man  contributes  no  influence,  and  the 
causes  which  produce  them  are  characterized  by  the  general  term 
nature.  But  our  own  volitions  are  also  causes  of  motion,  and  often 
interfere  to  modify  or  interrupt  the  course  of  events  around  us. 
Nature  and  choice  come  thus  to  be  considered  as  diverse  and  even 
opposite  to  each  other.  A  proposition  may  be  constructed,  found- 
ed upon  this  notion,  of  some  kind  of  opposition  between  nature 
and  choice,  which  shall  be  true,  but  the  misfortune  is,  it  will  be  too 
true, — it  can  be  nothing  else  than  a  truism.  But  a  natural  cause 
may  be  distinguished  from  a  moral  cause,  if  we  denote  by  the  first 
a  cause  which  produces  its  effect  upon  matter,  and  by  the  other 
a  cause  which  acts  upon  the  mind.  This,  we  admit,  is  a  usual  and 
legitimate  use  of  the  epithet  natural.  Here  we  have  an  opposition 
between  nature  and  choice,  or  rather  between  nature  and  the  cause 
of  choice,  which  is  founded  upon  the  difference  between  the  objects 
upon  which  they  act ;  the  effect  of  the  one  is  some  change  in  mat- 
ter, of  the  other,  an  act  of  the  mind.  There  must  of  course  be  a  dif- 
ference in  nature  between  these  two  classes  of  causes  to  adapt 
them  to  the  production  of  their  different  effects.  The  mind  cannot 
be  directly  acted  upon  by  such  causes  as  are  comprehended  in  our 
notion  of  nature ;  it  is  moved  by  motives  presented  to  the  under- 
standing, or  by  its  own  habitual  dispositions.  We  should  esteem 
it  therefore  a  work  of  supererogation,  to  deny  vociferously  that  a 
man  can  be  responsible  for  a  choice,  which  is  the  result  of  a  natu- 
ral cause.  No  correct  definition  of  a  natural,  as  distinguished 
from  a  moral,  cause,  can  be  given,  which  would  not  exclude  choice 
from  the  sphere  of  its  operation.  Dr.  Beecher  is  the  only  writer 
we  have  ever  met  with  who  seemed  to  suppose  that  the  will  could 
be  moved  by  water-power  or  propelled  by  steam.  He  gives  a 
very  characterijstic  illustration  of  what  he  calls  "  the  fatality  of 
agency,"  in  which  he  supposes  volitions  to  be  produced  by  "the 
motion  of  a  great  water-wheel  and  the  various  bands  which  keep 
the  motion  and  the  praise  and  the  blasphemy  agoing."  This  illus- 
tration he  introduces,  not  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  absurdity 
of  the  thing  supposed,  but  to  prove  that  no  "  accountability  would 
attach  to  these  voluntary  praises  and  blasphemies  produced  by  the 
laws  of  water-power."      Now  we  are  quite  as  ready  to  grant. 


190  DR. 

that  a  man  is  not  responsible  for  any  volition  that  is  sucked  or 
forced  out  of  him  by  a  pump,  or  squeezed  out  by  a  screw,  as  we 
would  be  on  the  other  hand  to  contend,  that  if  one  of  the  stones 
that  bounded  up  at  the  call  of  Orpheus's  music,  had  struck  and 
killed  a  man  in  its  frantic  joy,  it  ought  to  have  been  tried  and  con- 
demned for  murder.  Either  of  these  propositions  we  imagine 
would  unite  all  suffrages,  for  one  of  them  is  just  as  true  as  the  other. 
We  trust  this  will  be  deemed  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  much  that 
Dr.  Beecher  has  said  respecting  choice  being  the  "  effect  of  natu- 
ral causes,  as  really  and  entirely  as  the  falling  of  rain,  or  the  elec- 
tric spark,  or  the  involuntary  shock  that  attends  it." 

It  is  evident  that  if  we  would  get  at  Dr.  Beecher*s  meaning  we 
must  seek  it  elsewhere  than  among  these  first  principles  of  his  rea- 
soning. We  will  be  more  likely  to  find  it  a  little  further  on  in  his 
system.  The  stream,  which  is  muddy  at  its  origin,  sometimes 
becomes  more  clear  as  it  proceeds.  Dr.  Beecher  has  obviously 
reasoned  backward  from  certain  ulterior  truths  which  he  wished  to 
maintain  in  search  of  the  first  principles  which  were  adapted  to 
uphold  them.  One  of  these  starting  points  is  the  position,  that  in 
every  particular  case  a  moral  agent  might  have  abstained  from  the 
choice  which  he  made,  and  made  one  which  he  did  not ;  and  he 
seems  to  think  that  this  is  established  when  he  has  proved  that 
man  is  not  accountable  for  those  of  his  volitions  that  are  worked 
out  of  him  by  water-power.  Thus  that  man  "  cannot  but  sin 
when  he  does  sin,  more  than  rivers  of  muddy  water  can  purify 
themselves,"  and  that  he  "  is  not  able  to  modify  and  diversify  his 
choice  indefinitely,"  are  used  as  synonymous  expressions.  The 
soul  being  "  exempt  from  the  laws  of  natural  necessity,"  is 
assumed  as  equivalent  with  the  existence  "  of  a  possibility  in 
every  case  of  a  different  or  contrary  choice."  And  in  one  of  the 
passages  which  we  have  previously  quoted  there  are  found  the 
following  inquiries  put,  as  if  they  were  but  repetitions  of  the  same 
idea  :  "  Whether  it  (choice)  is  the  act  of  a  mind  so  qualified  for 
choice  as  to  decide  between  alternatives,  uncoerced  by  the  energy 
of  a  natural  cause  to  its  effect ;"  and,  '*  whether  it  is  the  act  of  an 
agent  who  might  have  abstained  from  the  choice  he  made,  and 
made  one  which  he  did  not."  The^e  is  here  an  assumption  tacitly 
made,  without  any  shadow  of  proof,  respecting  natural  causes, 
which  really  involves  the  whole  question  in  dispute.  It  is  adroitly 
taken  for  granted,  that  any  effect  which  is  produced  by  other  than 
a  natural  cause,  might  have  been  different  from  what  it  is.  It  is 
impossible  not  to  admire  the  convenience  of  this  mode  of  reason- 
ing. It  saves  a  world  of  trouble.  Having  proved,  what  it  would 
be  very  foolish  in  any  one  to  deny,  that  no  man  is  responsible  for 
such  of  his  volitions  as  are  produced  "  by  the  motion  of  water- 
wheels,"  there  is  nothing  more  to  be  done  but  to  take  possession  of 
the  ground,  that  a  man  is  not  accountable  for  his  acts,  unless  he 
possesses  the  power  of  willing  differently  from  what  he  does  in 
every  particular  case. 


191 

We  have  admitted  the  truth  of  the  first  of  these  statements  ;* 
we  are  not  yet  prepared,  however,  to  adopt  the  second.  Before 
discussing  this  question  it  will  be  expedient  to  define  the  terms  will 
and  volition.  These  words  are  used  with  considerable  latitude  of 
meaning.  Under  the  division  of  our  faculties,  made  by  the  earlier 
writers,  into  the  powers  of  the  understanding  and  those  of  the  will, 
this  latter  term  included  all  our  inclinations,  desires  and  passions. 
And  the  word  is  still  often  used  in  this  large  sense.  According  to 
Mr.  Belsham,  "  every  volition  is  a  modification  of  the  passion  of 
desire,"  and  Dr.  Priestley  asks,  '*  is  not  every  wish  a  volition  ?" 
This  is  the  popular  sense  of  the  word,  as  when  the  apothecary  in 
Romeo  and  Juliet  says,  "  My  poverty  but  not  my  will  consents  ;" 
and  nothing  is  more  common  than  to  hear  people  speak  of  doing  a 
thing  against  their  wills,  in  which  nevertheless  they  acted  volun- 
tarily. The  acts  of  the  will  are  thus  confounded  with  the  desires 
and  affections ;  and  the  faculty  of  will  is  not  to  be  distinguished 
from  our  susceptibility  of  emotion.  But  when  we  consider  what 
passes  in  our  minds,  we  find  that  while  some  of  our  desires  remain 
immanent,  there  are  others  of  them  that  are  followed  by  action. 
When  the  idea  of  some  action  of  our  own,  which  we  conceive  to 
be  in  our  power,  is  contemplated  by  the  mind,  associated  with 
some  object  or  end  which  we  desire  to  attain,  there  results  a  deter- 
mination to  act,  and  this  is  followed  by  the  action  determined 
upon.  It  is  this  determination  which  is  followed  by  some  act  of 
the  body  or  mind  that  philosophers  have  very  generally  agreed  to 
call  volition^  and  the  power  that  produces  it,  the  faculty  of  will, 
Locke  defines  volition  to  be,  "  an  act  of  the  mind  knowingly 
exerting  that  dominion  it  takes  itself  to  have  over  any  part  of  the 
man  by  employing  it  in,  or  withholding  it  from,  any  particular 
action."  No  definition  can  be  given,  however,  of  a  simple  act  of 
the  mind  that  will  convey  any  idea  of  it  to  those  who  do  not 
reflect  upon  what  passes  within  them.  To  obtain  a  clear  notion 
of  what  is  meant  by  a  volition,  or  an  act  of  the  will,  we  must  refer 
to  our  own  consciousness  of  what  takes  place  when  we  resolve 
to  do  any  particular  thing — the  state  of  mind  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  action  is  a  volition,  and  the  faculty  or  power,  in  virtue 
of  which  we  are  enabled  to  form  such  a  determination  to  act, 
is  the  will. 

The  cause  of  any  particular  volition,  or  that  which  moves  the 
mind  to  determine  to  act  in  any  instance,  is  called  a  motive.  It 
seems  to  have  been  the  opinion  of  Locke  that  the  immediate 
motive  of  every  volition  is  some  uneasiness.  He  supposes  the 
external  object  to  awaken  desire,  that  this  desire,  while  ungratified, 
produces  uneasiness,  and  that  to  get  rid  of  this  uneasiness  the 
will  determines  upon  the  appropriate  action.     It  may  be  doubted 

*  The  term  truth  is  not  strictly  applicable  to  such  propositions  as  the  one  here 
referred  to.  Of  such  an  assertion  as  this,  "  a  man  is  not  bound  to  cultivate  any  of 
the  virtues,  which  are  square  or  red,"  we  could  not  in  strict  propriety  say  it  was 
either  true  or  false,  but  we  might  very  safely  let  it  pass  without  dispute. 


192  DR.  beecher's  theology. 

whether  this  is  altogether  a  correct  account  of  the  matter.  Bat  if 
there  be  in  all  cases,  immediately  preceding  the  determination  to 
act,  a  state  of  mind  that  is  properly  described  by  uneasiness,  it  is 
not  to  this  that  the  term  motive  is  usually  applied.  It  is  generally 
employed  to  denote  either  the  external  object  or  action,  or  the  state 
of  the  agent's  mind  in  relation  to  it.  We  associate  action  as  a 
motive  with  object,  for  it  is  an  important  fact  towards  the  solution 
of  some  of  the  phenomena  of  the  will,  that  in  its  volitions  the  mind 
is  often  not  so  much  conversant  with  the  objects  presented,  as  with 
its  own  action  in  relation  to  these  objects.  There  are  many  cases 
in  which  action,  simply  considered,  is  the  end  at  which  the  mind 
aims.  It  gives  rise  to  much  confusion  and  error,  if,  in  speaking  of 
the  motives  of  volition,  we  leave  out  of  consideration  the  state  of 
mind  of  the  agent.  The  same  object  which  is  a  powerful  motive 
to  action  at  one  time,  is  viewed  with  indifference  at  another,  in 
consequence  of  the  different  state  of  the  mind  to  which  it  is  pre- 
sented. The  motive  is  not  properly  the  external  object,  but  the 
affection  of  the  mind  in  relation  to  that  object. 

Let  us  now  resume  the  inquiry  whether,  in  any  given  case,  a 
man  might  have  willed  contrary  to  what  he  did  ?  And  here  it 
may  be  observed,  that  the  mode  of  putting  the  question  virtually 
makes  a  change  in  the  conditions  under  which  the  supposed  choice 
took  place.  The  only  sense  in  which  it  is  true  that  the  man  might 
have  willed  differently,  is,  that  he  might,  if  he  had  been  inclinedto 
do  so.  But  his  being  inclined  to  will  as  he  did,  was  the  determin- 
ing cause  of  his  volition.  The  word  might  therefore  implies  a 
change  in  the  antecedents  of  the  particular  choice  in  question,  and 
is  on  this  account  inconsistent  with  the  hypothesis  that  all  the 
circumst;uices  remain  the  same.  If  it  is  urged  that  he  might  have 
willed  differently,  because  he  might  have  changed  the  stale  of  his 
mind,  we  reply,  that  to  do  this  would  require,  of  course,  an  act  of 
the  will,  and  that  act  must  have  a  previous  inclination  for  its 
motive,  and  so  on  without  end.  We  are  thus  driven  to  hunt  along 
an  infinite  chain  for  the  first  link. 

Consciousness  is  appealed  to  by  Dr.  Beecher  for  proof  that  we 
always  have  power  to  will  differently  from  what  we  do.  We 
agree  with  him  that  "  consciousness  is  the  end  of  controversy," 
but  it  is  necessary  to  be  very  careful  in  taking  its  testimony.  What 
then  is  the  witness  of  consciousness  in  this  matter?  For  ourselves, 
in  every  process  of  volition,  we  are  conscious  only  of  the  presence 
of  certain  views  and  considerations,  some  inclining  us  to  will  in 
one  way  and  some  in  another,  and  also  of  a  power  which  we 
possess  to  will  as  we  please.  We  are  not  conscious  of  any  power 
to  will  contrary  to  our  prevailing  inclination.  Our  consciousness 
concurs  with  other  considerations  in  proving  that  a  man  might,  in 
any  case,  have  made  a  different  or  contrary  choice,  if  he  had  been 
inclined  so  to  do,  and  it  proves  nothing  more  than  this. 

It  is  now  very  plain  what  kind  of  power  Dr.  Beecher  attributes 
to  the  will.     His  position  is,  that  all  the  circumstances  under  which 


DR. 


193 


any  choice  is  made  remaining  the  same,  the  man  had  power  never- 
theless to  will  the  contrary.  His  hypothesis  supposes  that  the 
views  and  inchnations  of  the  mind  remain  unchanged,  and  that  the 
man  can  will  in  direct  opposition  to  them.  This  is  the  most  disas- 
trous power  that  can  well  be  conceived  of,  and  if  any  man  possesses 
it,  he  ought  to  make  it  his  daily  prayer  to  be  delivered  from  it. 
No  man,  while  cursed  with  such  a  self-determining  power  as  this, 
could  be  safe  for  a  moment.  With  his  whole  soul  bent  in  one 
direction,  he  might  be  borne,  and  that  too  by  his  own  will,  in 
another.  With  the  most  anxious  desire  to  escape  from  danger,  he 
might  be  carried  immediately  into  it.  He  could  form  no  plans  for 
his  own  conduct,  nor  would  others  be  able  to  anticipate  in  the  least 
degree  what  they  might  expect  from  him. 

But  perhaps  Dr.  Beecher  intended  to  exclude  from  the  unchanged 
circumstances  of  the  agent,  his  own  state  of  mind.  He  may  mean 
that  the  agent  has  power  to  will  differently,  because  he  has  power 
to  change  his  inclination.  This  involves  the  absurdity,  already 
pointed  out,  of  requiring  an  infinite  series  of  antecedent  volitions  ; 
or  else  it  assumes  that  the  will  can  act  to  modify  the  inclination  of 
the  mind,  without  any  motive  to  determine  it,  and  we  are  thus  led 
to  the  common  notion  held  by  Arminians  of  the  self-determining 
power  of  the  will. 

In  contending  then  that  in  every  given  case  a  man  might  have 
made  a  different  choice,  Dr,  Beecher  contends  for  one  of  the 
following  things.  In  the  first  place,  that  under  the  same  conditions, 
that  is,  with  an  inclination  to  will  in  a  particular  direction,  he  had 
power  to  will  the  contrary.  Now  if  man  possesses  any  such 
power  as  this,  it  may  on  some  occasions  be  exercised.  A  power 
that  cannot  be  put  in  action  is  no  power  at  all.  On  some  occasion, 
then,  when  a  man  desires  with  all  his  heart  to  do  a  particular  thing, 
there  may  spring  up  a  volition  to  do  something  directly  contrary, 
towards  which  he  has  no  desire,  and  which  he  even  hates  with  perfect 
hatred.*  It  would  be  very  singular  if  such  a  power  as  this,  which, 
if  it  existed,  would  deprive  all  its  acts  of  a  moral  character,  and 
render  man  incapable  of  being  governed  by  a  moral  law,  should 
yet  be  necessary  in  order  to  render  him  accountable.  If  this  is  not 
Dr.  Beecher's  meaning,  then  he  must  mean,  in  the  second  place, 
that  in  every  case  of  volition,  the  man  might  have  abstained  from 
the  choice  he  made,  because  he  had  the  power  to  alter  the  incli- 
nation which  led  to  the  choice.  And  in  this  case  we  have  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  theory  of  self-determining  power  of  the  will,  which 
we  thought  every  Calvinist  at  least  had  considered  twice  dead  and 
buried. 

But  how  then,  it  is  asked,  can  man  be  responsible  for  any  voli- 
tion, if  he  has  not  the  power  of  willing  differently  ?     "  Is  not  ability 

*  If  so  light  a  remark  may  be  tolerated  here,  we  would  say  that  the  only  illustra- 
tion with  which  we  are  acquainted  of  such  power  as  the  one  in  question,  is  afforded 
by  some  of  our  new-school  brethren,  who,  with  a  great  desire  apparently  to  be  ortho- 
dox, are  yet  continually  willing  the  contrary. 

13 


194 

the  ground  and  measure  of  obligation?"  If  it  is,  then  to  be  sure 
man  must  possess  llie  power,  however  incomprehensible  or  absurd 
it  may  seem,  since  there  can  be  no  question  that  he  is  bound  to 
will  right.  But  we  deny  the  truth  of  this  maxim  in  the  sense  in 
which  it  is  held  by  Dr.  Beecher  ;  and  since  this  is  one  of  the  fixed 
centres  around  which  many  forms  of  error  revolve,  we  will  endea- 
vour to  point  out  its  unsoundness.  We  have  already  admitted  that 
a  man  cannot  be  bound  to  perform  any  act,  which,  though  he  be 
willing  to  do  it,  is  impracticable.  If  he  is  deprived  of  his  limbs,  or 
if  they  have  been  paralysed  by  disease,  he  cannot  be  under  any 
obligation  to  walk.  He  cannot  be  bound  to  fly,  or,  in  short,  to  do 
anything  which  would  be  out  of  his  power,  provided  he  was  wil- 
ling and  desirous  to  do  it.  In  all  such  actions  as  are  properly  con- 
sequent upon  volition,  it  is  true  that  ability  is  the  ground  and  mea- 
sure of  obligation.  Dr.  Beecher's  error  consists  in  extending  the 
maxim  to  a  case  which  lies  beyond  the  premises  within  which  it 
was  generalized,  and  in  this  application  of  it  we  utterly  deny  its 
truth.  We  can  find  nothing  in  the  Bible,  or  in  the  general  judg- 
ment of  mankind,  to  prove  that  a  man  is  not  responsible  for  his 
volitions,  unless  he  possesses  in  each  case  the  power  to  will  con- 
trary to  his  desires,  or  the  power  to  change  in  an  instant,  by  an 
act  of  the  will,  his  inclinations  and  affections.  The  first  of  these 
powers  he  could  not  possess  and  exercise  without  ceasing  to  be  a 
moral  agent ;  and  the  second,  it  is  notorious  that  he  does  not  pos- 
sess. There  is  no  fact  in  the  operations  of  the  rhind  better  esta- 
blished, than  that  the  affections  cannot  be  immediately  acted  upon 
by  the  will.  No  man  ever  loved  any  object  or  ceased  to  love  it 
in  obedience  to  a  volition.  If  any  one  doubts  this,  we  have  no 
way  of  proving  it  but  by  bidding  him  to  make  the  trial.  If  he  pos- 
sesses this  power  he  can  surely  exercise  it,  and  a  few  experiments 
upon  the  subject  will  satisfy  him  whether  he  has  it  or  not.  The  only 
power  which  man  possesses  of  destroying  existing  affections,  or 
creating  new  ones,  is  that  of  directing  the  attention  of  his  mind  to 
such  considerations  as  may  be  adapted  to  exert  the  required  influence 
upon  it.  This  is  a  matter  of  universal  experience.  But  at  the 
instant  of  making  any  particular  choice,  he  has  no  motive  to  induce 
him  thus  to  direct  the  attention  of  his  mind  to  adverse  considera- 
tions. To  suppose  this,  is  to  suppose  that  he  has  a  desire  to  change 
his  existing  desire,  or  that  he  has  towards  the  same  object,  at  the 
same  moment,  two  contrary  desires,  equally  strong,  since  either  of 
them  is  capable  of  producing  a  corresponding  choice.  If  this  be 
required  to  render  man  accountable,  it  is  very  certain  that  there 
is  no  accountability  in  our  world.  The  only  plausibility  which  the 
maxim  "that  ability  is  the  ground  and  measure  of  obligation"  pos- 
sesses, when  applied  to  volitions  and  affections,  is  derived  from  its 
being  intuitively  true  when  referred  to  a  different  class  of  acts,  and 
from  the  proper  discrimination  not  being  made  between  the  two 
cases.  Dr.  Beecher  appeals  to  the  common  sentiments  and  con- 
duct of  men  to  prove  that "  the  lunatic  ought  not  to  be  treated  as  a 


195 

subject  of  law,"  "  that  the  poor  idiot  is  not  responsible  for  its  acts," 
and  that  a  woman,  whom  he  knew,  whose  mind  had  lost  the  power 
of  association,  ought  not  to  be  required  to  deliver  a  Fourth  of  July 
Oration,  and  then,  because  she  failed,  "  be  taken  to  the  whipping 
post  and  lacerated  for  that  which  she  wanted  the  natural  ability  to  do." 
It  is  from  instances  like  these,  in  which  he  must,  of  course,  carry 
universal  conviction  with  him,  that  he  arrives  at  the  general  truth 
that  ability  is  the  measure  of  obligation.  The  general  conclusion, 
thus  obtained,  is  immediately  applied  to  prove  that  no  man  can  be 
responsible  for  a  volition,  unless  at  the  same  time  he  made  it,  he  had 
power  to  will  to  the  contrary  ;  nor  for  any  inclination,  unless,  when 
cherishing  it,  he  was  able  to  divest  himself  of  it  by  a  single  act  of  will, 
both  of  them  cases  greatly  dissimilar  to  those  which  furnished  the 
general  axiom, and  incapable  therefore  of  receiving  any  illustration 
from  it.  The  common  judgment  of  man's  con^ience  in  relation  to  these 
cases,  is  that  a  man  is  accountable  for  every  act  of  his  will,  because 
it  is  the  act  of  his  own  will,  and  for  every  inclination,  because  it 
is  his  own  inclination.  The  axiom  that  ability  and  obligation  must 
be  commensurate,  in  the  extensive  sense  given  to  it  by  Dr.  Beecher, 
is  false  and  dangerous.  He  seems  to  have  a  special  horror  of 
fatalism,  and  we  know  no  more  likely  way  to  make  men  fatalists 
than  by  teaching  them  to  believe  the  truth  of  this  maxim.  It  is 
not  more  certain  that  man  is  an  accountable  agent,  than  it  is  that 
he  does  not  possess  the  power  at  any  moment  to  divest  himself  of 
an  evil  inclination  or  affection  by  an  act  of  his  will.  Teach  him 
then  that  this  power  is  essential  to  accountability,  and  the  infer- 
ence made,  in  a  majority  of  cases,  will  be,  not  that  he  really  has  a 
power  which  all  his  experience  convinces  him  he  does  not  possess, 
bui  that,  being  destitute  of  it,  he  is  not  responsible  for  his  evil 
temper.  The  insensibility  to  the  difference  between  right  and 
wrong  which  will  thus  be  produced  is  the  distinctive  mark  of  the 
fatalist. 

Dr.  Beecher  refers  to  the  Bible  for  proof  of  the  truth  of  his 
opinions,  but  it  is  almost  needless  to  add  that  he  receives  from  it 
no  aid,  except  in  establishing  what  no  one  has  denied,  that  man 
possesses  the  powers  requisite  to  free  agency.  The  substance  of 
his  reasoning  under  this  head,  is  to  show  from  the  Bible  that  man 
is  a  free,  accountable  agent,  and  then  virtually  to  assume  that  the 
Bible  maintains  his  peculiar  theory  of  free  agency  and  account- 
ableness.  He  does  not  succeed,  however,  in  proving  the  common 
doctrine  of  man's  natural  ability,  without  committing  some  singular 
mistakes.  The  following  passage  will  show  how  little  reliance 
is  to  be  placed  upon  Dr.  Beecher  as  an  interpreter  o(  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

"  The  manner  in  which  all  excuses  are  treated  in  Scripture, 
which  are  fpunded  on  the  plea  of  inability,  confirms  our  exposition. 
There  were  impenitent  sinners  of  old,  who  pleaded  a  natural 
inability  of  obedience.  In  the  time  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  there 
were  those  who  alienjed  that  God's  decrees  created  the  unavoid- 


196  DR.  BEECHER*S  THEOLOGT. 

able  necessity  of  sinning.  They  said  they  could  not  help  it.  But 
God,  by  his  prophet,  instead  of  conceding  the  doctrine,  repelled  it 
with  indignation. 

"  *  Behold,  ye  trust  in  lying  words,  that  cannot  profit.  Will  ye 
steal,  murder,  and  commit  adultery,  and  swear  falsely,  and  burn 
incense  unto  Baal,  and  walk  after  other  gods  whom  ye  know  not ; 
and  come  and  stand  before  me  in  this  house,  which  is  called  by  my 
name,  and  say.  We  are  delivered  to  do  all  these  abominations  V — 
/er.  vii.,  8,  9,'l0. 

"  Does  God  approve  of  men*s  reasoning,  when  they  say,  God 
has  decreed  it,  and  God  executes  his  decrees,  and  a  resistless  fate 
moves  us  on  to  evil.  Far  from  it.  In  what  stronger  language 
could  the  Lord  speak  to  hardened  and  impudent  men,  who  laid 
their  sins  at  his  door  ?  Now  the  fall  itself  was  somehow  com- 
prehended in  God's  decrees  :  and  if  it  be  true  that  the  fall  took 
away  all  man's  natural  ability,  wherein  were  those  Jews  wrong  ? 
Their  excuse  was  that  their  sins  were  produced  by  the  fatality  of 
God's  decrees.  They  were  delivered  to  do  all  these  abominations. 
Their  fathers  had  eaten  sour  grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  were 
set  on  edge.  By  the  sin  of  Adam  they  had  lost  all  free  agency, 
and  therefore  they  were  not  to  blame  ;  all  was  just  as  God  would 
have  it ;  an  inexorable  fate  drove  them  on,  and  how  could  they 
resist  the  Almighty  ?  But  if  God  did  indeed  require  spiritual 
obedience  from  men  who  lay  in  a  state  of  natural  impotency,  how 
is  it  that  he  frowned  so  indignantly,  when  they  pleaded  their  impo- 
tence in  bar  of  judgment  ?" 

He  subsequently  refers  to  the  same  passage  again  in  the  follow- 
ing words : 

"  So  the  same  opinions  operated  among  the  Jews,  as  we  learn 
by  the  terrible  interrogations  of  the  prophet — '  Will  ye  lie,  and 
steal,  and  commit  adultery,  and  swear  falsely,  and  burn  incense 
unto  Baal,  and  come  into  this  house  which  is  called  by  my  name, 
and  say  we  are  delivered  to  do  all  these  abominations  ?  We  have 
no  power  over  ourselves.  We  do  but  obey  the  irresistible  laws  of 
our  nature.  We  are  delivered  by  the  constitution  God  has  given 
us  to  do  all  these  things.'  The  only  difference  between  these 
ancient  and  modern  licentious  antinomians  is,  that  the  ancient 
denied  accountability  entirely  ;  while  the  latter  attach  it  to 
fatality,  and  bring  in  the  grace  of  God  to  deliver  from  a  natural 
impotency." 

The  whole  force  of  this  passage  turns  upon  the  words  "we  are 
delivered,"  and  it  is  unfortunate  that  Dr.  Beecher  should  have 
made  so  strong  a  use  of  it,  and  founded  upon  it  so  much  rhetoric 
and  logic,  without  ascertaining  what  the  word  thus  translated 
meant.  It  never,  in  any  instance  of  its  use,  has  a  signification  at 
all  approaching  that  which  he  assigns  to  it.  It  is  the  same  word, 
and  in  the  same  tense,  that  is  used  in  Isaiah  xx.,  6:  "  Behold  such 
is  our  expectation  whither  we  flee  for  help,  to  be  delivered  from  the 
king  of  Assyria."  It  never  means,  to  be  bound  fast  by  a  divine  decree 


197 

or  by  anything  else,  but  in  opposition  to  this,  to  he  free^  to  be  saved. 
In  the  passage  quoted  by  Dr.  Beecher,  the  sense  evidently  is,  "  Will 
ye  come  and  say,  We  are  free  to  do  these  abominations,  we  shall 
have  immunity  in  the  perpetration  of  them,  we  shall  escape  the 
punishments  threatened  by  the  prophets."  A  preterite  tense, 
instead  of  the  future,  is  used,  says  Michaelis,  to  denote  the  firm 
persuasion  of  safety.  The  grossness  of  Dr.  Beecher's  mistake  is 
apparent.  This  comes  of  applying  the  principles  of  the  Baconian 
philosophy,  instead  of  the  Hebrew  Lexicon,  to  the  interpretation 
of  the  Bible. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  follow  Dr.  Beecher  regularly  through  the 
course  of  his  argument  and  declamation.  Most  of  his  arguments 
go  merely  to  prove  that  man  is  a  free,  accountable  agent.  We 
believe  we  have  already  replied  to  every  consideration  which  he 
has  brought  forward  in  defence  of  his  own  theory  of  free  agency. 
There  is  one  of  his  topics,  however,  which  deserves  a  passing  com- 
ment, principally  for  the  sake  of  showing  how  far  it  is  safe  to  trust 
to  Dr.  Beecher's  accuracy  in  matters  of  history.  One  of  his  heads 
of  argument  is  this.  **  Choice,  without  the  possibility  of  other  or 
contrary  choice,  is  the  immemorial  doctrine  of  fatalism."  He  is 
kind  enough  to  add,  "  I  say  not  that  all  who  assert  the  natural  ina- 
bility of  man  are  fatalists.  I  charge  them  not  with  holding  or 
admitting  the  consequences  of  their  theory — and  I  mean  nothing 
unkind  or  invidious,  in  the  proposition  I  have  laid  down,  and  truth 
and  argument  are  not  invidious."  There  will  be  observed  here 
that  adroit  and  confounding  together  of  distinct  things  to  which  we 
have  several  times  alluded.  In  the  proposition,  he  is  declared  to 
be  a  fatalist,  who  denies  that,  at  the  time  of  every  volition,  the 
agent  might  have  made  a  different  or  contrary  one,  and  in  the  next 
sentence  this  is  changed  into  asserting  the  natural  inability  of 
man.  The  method  of  argument  pursued,  in  fixing  the  charge  of 
fatalism  on  those  who  differ  from  him,  may  certainly  lay  claim  to 
originality.  His  theme  is,  "  That  choice  without  the  power  of 
contrary  choice  is  fatalism  in  all  its  diversified  forms,  is  obvious  to 
inspection,  and  a  matter  of  historical  record."  For  the  proof  of 
this  position  we  might  reasonably  expect  to  find  evidence  produced, 
from  a  careful  examination  of  the  systems  of  fatalists,  that  they 
all  held  the  precise  opinion  in  question  respecting  the  nature  of 
choice.  But  instead  of  this,  the  author  gives  us  a  list  of  fatalists, 
for  the  most  of  whom  he  has  manufactured  a  creed  by  the  exer- 
cise of  his  own  ingenuity,  instead  of  searching  their  writings  to 
see  what  they  really  believed  and  taught,  and  all  of  whom,  with 
one  or  two  exceptions,  according  to  his  account  of  them,  were 
materialists.  We  might  prove,  in  this  way,  that  to  believe  in  the 
existence  of  matter  is  to  adof>t  fatalism,  for  it  is  obvious  to  inspec- 
tion, and  matter  of  historical  record,  that  all  fatalists  have  believed 
in  it.  We  will  now  examine  the  value  of  Dr.  Beecher's  historical 
record.  His  list  of  fatalists  comprises  the  Stoics,  the  Epicureans, 
the  Gnostics,  the  Manicheans,  Spinosa,  Descartes,  the  French  revo- 


198 

lutionary  atheists,  Bolingbroke,  Hume,  Hobbes,  Priestley,  and  Bel- 
sham.  He  states,  at  some  length,  and  in  an  oracular  manner,  their 
different  systems,  as  if  he  knew  all  about  them,  and  were  well 
qualified  to  instruct  others.  For  the  fatalism  of  the  Stoics  we  refer 
the  reader  to  the  first  instance  of  the  Enchiridion  of  Epictetus, 
where  he  will  find  as  strong  a  statement  as  could  well  be  ^iven  of 
the  liberty  of  the  will :  and  to  Dugald  Stewart,  who  is  high 
authority  in  matters  touching  the  history  of  philosophy,  and  who 
declares  that  the  "  Stoics,  with  their  usual  passion  for  exaggera- 
tion, carried  their  notions  of  the  liberty  of  the  will  to  an  unphilo- 
sophical  extreme."* 

The  fullest  exposition  which  has  come  down  to  us  of  the  sys- 
tem of  the  Epicureans,  is  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  Lucretius, 
and  we  refer  Dr.  Beecher  to  his  Rerum  Natura,  lib.  2,  v.  250- 
261,  for  proof  that  one  of  their  avowed  objects  in  maintaining  their 
notion  of  the  *  declination  of  atoms,'  was  to  avoid  the  difficulties 
of  fate.  In  this  passage,  Lucretius  makes  use  of  the  free  will  of 
man,  libera  voluntas,  to  prove  that  each  cause  is  not  linked  in  with 
a  previous  cause  from  infinity,  and  that  there  is  a  principle  which 
can  break  the  decrees  of  fate,  quod  fati  foedera  rumpat.  He 
expressly  calls  the  will  of  man,  a  will  set  free  from  the  fates, /«ii* 
avolsa  voluntas,  in  virtue  of  which  we  go  whithersoever  our  plea- 
sure leads  us.  He  declares  it  to  be  far  from  doubt,  dahio  procul, 
that  each  man's  own  will  is  a  principle  of  motion  and  action  sepa- 
rate and  independent  of  fate.  Cicero  also,  in  his  book  de  Fato, 
alludes  to  what  he  calls  the  "  commentitias  declinationes"  of  the 
Epicureans,  as  having  been  introduced  by  them  for  the  avowed 
purpose  of  freeing  "  the  voluntary  motions"  of  man  from  the  con- 
trol of  fate.  Of  Spinosa  we  know  nothing  save  from  the  writings 
of  his  opponents,  though  we  comfort  ourselves  here,  in  our  igno- 
rance, with  the  remark  which  Voltaire  somewhat  makes,  that  there 
are  not  ten  persons  in  Europe  who  have  read  Spinosa'^  works.  If 
Dr.  Beecher  has  read  them,  we  are  willing  to  receive  his  account 
of  what  they  contain  ;  but  if  he  has  drawn  upon  his  own  imagina- 
tion for  his  system,  as  he  has  done  with  most  of  his  other  fatalists, 
we  must  still  hold  the  matter  in  doubt.  It  would  be  impossible  for 
us  to  convey,  within  the  limits  which  we  can  devote  to  it,  any- 
thing like  an  adequate  idea  of  the  metaphysical  system  of  Hbbhes, 
though  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  show  that  Dr.  Beecher  has  done 
him  injustice.  Hobbes  is  distinguished  beyond  most  authors  for 
his  sententious  brevity.  He  is  the  most  pithy  and  laconic  of  aH 
philosophical  writers.  After  he  has  once  defined  a  term,  or  stated 
a  proposition,  he  is  seldom  at  the  trouble  of  repeating  them,  taking 
it  for  granted  that  his  readers  will  understand  and  remember  every- 
thing that  he  has  once  said.  Hence*  though  his  style  is  remark- 
ably clear,  his  language,  as  Sir  James  Mackintosh  says  of  it,  never 
having  but  one  meaning,  and  that  one  never  requiring  a  second 

♦  Stewart's  Works,  vol.  vi.,  p.  241. 


DR.  beecher's  theology.  199 

thought  to  find,  he  is  nevertheless  liable  to  be  misapprehended  by 
one  who  reads  only  detached  portions  of  his  writings.  Thus  he 
denies  in  many  passages  that  the  affections  and  passions  of  the 
heart  are  voluntary,  but  his  meaning  is*  elsewhere  explained. 
"Appetite,  fear,  hope,  and  the  rest  of  the  passions,  are  not  called 
voluntary^  for  they  proceed  not  from,  hut  are  the  will,  and  the  will 
is  not  voluntary ;  for  a  man  can  no  more  say  he  will  will,  than 
he  will  will  will,  and  so  make  an  infinite  repetition  of  the  word 
will,  which  is  absurd  and  insignificant."*  If  careful  attention  be 
paid  to  his  own  definitions  of  terms,  it  will  be  found  that  Hobbes 
maintains  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  common  doctrine  of  phi- 
losophical necessity.  He  gives  the  same  definition  of  freedom  with 
Edwards.  "  A  man  is  free,"  he  says,  "  when,  in  such  things  as  he 
has  strength  and  wit  to  do,  he  is  not  hindered  to  do  what  he  has  a 
will  to."t  He  first  pointed  out  that  for  which  Locke  generally 
receives  credit,  the  impropriety  of  affirming  freedom  of  the  will 
itself.  "  From  the  use  of  the  word  Free- Will,  no  liberty  can  be 
inferred  of  the  will,  desire  or  inclination,  but  the  liberty  of  man,  the 
which  consisteth  in  this,  that  he  finds  no  stop  in  doing  what  he  has 
the  will  or  inclination  to  do."J  In  the  commencement  of  his  letter 
to  the  Marquis  of  Newcastle,  in  reply  to  some  strictures  of  Bishop 
Bramhall,  he  states  the  question  thus :  "  His  Lordship  may  think  it 
all  one  to  say,  I  was  free  to  write,  and  it  was  not  necessary  I  should 
write ;  but  I  think  otherwise,  for  he  is  free  to  do  a  thing  that  may 
do  it  if  he  will  to  do  it;  and  may  forbear  if  he  have  the  will  to 
forbear.  I  acknowledge  this  liberty,  that  I  can  do  if  I  will ;  but  to 
say,  I  can  will  if  I  will,  I  take  to  be  an  absurd  speech.  In  fine, 
that  freedom  which  men  find  in  books,  that  which  the  poets  chaunt 
in  the  theatres,  and  the  shepherds  on  the  mountains  ;  that  which 
the  pastors  teach  in  pulpits,  and  the  doctors  in  the  universities,  and 
that  which  the  common  people  in  the  markets,  and  all  mankind  in 
the  whole  world  do  assent  unto,  is  the  same  that  I  assent  unto, 
namely,  that  a  man  hath  freedom  to  do  if  he  will,  but  whether  they 
have  freedom  to  will,  is  a  question  neither  the  bishop  nor  they  ever 
thought  of."  To  the  objection,  that  if  liberty  of  will  be  taken 
away,  "  the  nature  and  formal  reason  of  sin  is  taken  away,"  he 
makes  this  ve\Ay :  "  I  deny  the  consequence.  The  nature  of  sin 
consisteth  in  this,  that  the  action  done  proceeds  from  our  will,  and 
be  against  the  law.  A  judge,  in  judging  whether  that  be  sin  or  no 
which  is  done  against  the  law,  looks  at  no  higher  cause  of  the 
action  than  the  will  of  the  doer.  Now  when  1  say  that  the  action 
was  necessary,  I  do  not  say  it  was  done  against  the  will  of  the 
doer,  but  with  his  will,  and  necessary ,  because  man's  will,  that  is, 
every  volition  or  act  of  the  will,  had  a  sufficient,  and  therefore  a 
necessary  cause.  An  action  may  therefore  be  voluntary  and  a  sin, 
and  nevertheless  be  necessary. "§     Another  extract  will  illustrate, 

♦  Human  Nature,  p.  29.  f  Commonwealth,  p.  188,  %  Ibid.,  p.  IS9». 

§  Of  Liberty  and  Necessity,  p.  478. 


200  DR.  beecher's  theology. 

still  further  his  use  of  the  word  necessary.  "  If  there  be  an 
agent,  he  can  do  something ;  and  if  he  do  it,  there  is  nothing  want- 
ing of  what  is  requisite  to  produce  the  action  ;  and  consequently  the 
cause  of  the  action  is  sufficient,  and  if  sufficient,  then  also  necessary, 
as  has  been  proved  before."*  The  necessity  for  which  he  contends 
is  declared  to  be  perfectly  consistent  with  human  liberty  ;  he  denies 
that  it  removes  the  distinction  between  the  nature  of  virtue  and 
vice,  praise  and  blame,  reward  and  punishment ;  or  that  it  renders 
useless  admonitions  and  counsels,  promises  and  threatenings.  We 
do  not  believe  that  a  single  passage  can  be  produced  from  all  his 
writings  in  which  he  has  been  led  to  slide  into  the  notion  of  a  prac- 
tical necessity,  or  a  necessity  at  all  different  from  that  which  Ed- 
wards has  since  taught.  But  Dr.  Beecher  calls  him  a  fatalist,  and 
Dr.  Beecher  doubtless  is  a  learned  man  !  Then  Edwards  too  was  a 
fatalist.  We  have  not  yet  done  with  our  catalogue  of  errors.  Boling- 
broke  too  is  included  in  the  list  of  fatalists,  and  the  peculiar  form 
of  fatalism  which  he  held  is  particularly  described.  We  are  told 
that  he  supposed  "  motives,  as  the  antecedents  of  volition,  to  be 
clothed  with  the  coercive  power  of  material  causes  to  their  effects, 
and  thus  destroyed  the  liberty  of  the  will,"  &c.  This  rather  passes 
anything  we  have  had  yet.  Bolingbroke  was  one  of  the  most 
rampant  of  all  advocates /or  the  self -determining  power  of  the  will. 
He  uniformly  contends  for  this  power,  and  often  becomes  angry 
and  foul-mouthed  in  his  abuse  of  those  who  deny  it.  He  speaks 
of  "  the  free-will  of  man  which  no  one  can  deny  without  lyings 
or  renouncing  his  instinctive  knowledge.^f  He  says  again,  *'  To 
acknowledge  the  fatum  of  ancient  philosophers,  to  hold  with  the 
Mahometans  the  absolute  predestination  of  all  events,  with  Spinosa 
and  Calvin  the  necessity  of  all  our  actions,  or  with  Leibnitz  his 
whimsy  of  a  pre-established  harmony,  would  be  somewhat  almost 
as  mad  as  to  take  the  true  history  of  Lucian  for  such."J  "  I  am 
not  unacquainted,"  he  says,  "  with  the  various  refinements  of  inge- 
nious men  about  the  freedom  of  the  human  will.  Some  of  them 
have  assumed  it  to  be  a  freedom  from  external  compulsion  only, 
and  not  internal  necessity.  Others  have  assumed  it  to  be  ^free- 
dom from  both.  This  second  opinion  is  so  evidently  true,  that  I 
cannot  conceive  it  would  have  been  liable  to  any  contradiction,  if 
philosophers  had  not  done  in  this  case  what  they  do  in  many,  if 
they  had  not  rendered  what  is  clear,  obscure,  by  explanations,  and 
what  is  certain,  problematical,  by  engraftments."§  In  another 
passage  of  the  same  tract,  after  stating  what  the  Creator  has  done 
for  us,  he  adds,  **  What  we  shall  do  for  ourselves  he  has  left  to  the 
freedom  of  our  own  elections  ;  for  free-will  seems  so  essential  to 
rational  beings,  that  I  presume  we  cannot  conceive  any  such  to  be 
without  it."  We  should  not  be  surprised  after  this  to  see  Dr. 
Whitby  and  Dr.  Taylor,  the  ancient  and  the  modern,  with  sundry 

*  Of  Liberty  and  Necessity,  p.  480.  f  Philosophical  Works,  vol.  v.,  p.  85. 

X  Philosophical  Works,  vol.  viii.,  p.  280.  §  Ibid.,  p.  355. 


DR.  beechcr's  theology.  20| 

others  of  like  sentiments,  figuring  in  the  next  catalogue  of  fatalists 
which  Dr.  Beecher  may  have  occasion  to  draw  up.  But  the  most 
surprising  instance  yet  remains.  Descartes,  too,  among  the  fatal- 
ists !  We  give  his  account  of  Descartes'  philosophy.  *'The  fatal- 
ism of  Descartes  was  the  atomic  theory,  the  fortuitous  concourse 
of  atoms — intelligence  in  results  without  an  intelligent  being — 
design  without  a  designer — and  choice,  the  product  of  the  happy 
concurrence  of  material  accidents."  We  are  here  lost  in  amaze- 
ment. We  could  not  have  believed  it  possible  for  any  man  to  pen 
such  a  paragraph  as  this  of  the  great  father  of  the  modern  mental 
philosophy,  the  man  who  forms  an  era  in  the  history  of  metaphy- 
sics, physics,  and  mathematics,  and  whose  opinions  we  had  thought 
were  somewhat  known  to  everybody  who  reads  at  all.*  Descar- 
tes a  materialist,  an  atheist,  and  a  fatalist !  His  atheism  consists 
in  assuming  that,  next  to  the  existence  of  his  own  mind,  the  most 
certain  and  indisputable  of  all  truths  is  the  existence  of  God. 
His  materialism  is  to  be  sought  in  his  opinion,  which  Condorcet, 
D'Alembert,  and  many  others,  assert  never  had  been  before  dis- 
tinctly taught,  that  the  mind,  the  thinking  principle  in  man,  is 
strictly  and  properly  immaterial.  And  his  fatalism  can  be  found 
only  in  his  many  strenuous  defences  of  man's  "  freedom  of  will." 
At  the  very  outset  of  his  Frincipia  Philosophiae,  he  calls  upon  his 
reader  to  reject  everything  of  the  existence  of  which  it  is  possible 
for  him  to  doubt.  "We  can  easily  suppose,  he  says,  that  there  is 
no  God,  no  heaven,  no  bodies  ;  and  that  we  have  neither  hands  nor 
feet,  nor  body ;  but  we  cannot  thus  suppose  that  we  who  think 
these  things  do  not  exist,  for  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  that  which 
thinks,  at  the  very  time  while  thinking,  does  not  exist."  He  thus 
proves  the  actual  existence  of  a  thinking  principle,  which  is  not 
characterized  "  by  extension,  by  figure,  by  local  motion,  or  by  any 
property  like  those  which  we  attribute  to  matter ;  which  is  there- 
fore purely  immaterial ;  and  of  which  we  have  an  earlier  and 
more  certain  knowledge  than  of  any  material  thing."t  He  then 
proceeds  to  establish  the  being  and  perfections  of  God,  truths 
which  he  considers  as  necessarily  involved  in  the  idea  which  we 
are  capable  of  forming  of  an  eternal,  self-existent,  and  perfect 
being.  It  is  upon  the  veracity  of  God  that  he  founds  his  whole 
faith  in  the  evidence  of  his  senses,  and  the  conclusions  of  his 
reason.  He  then  returns  to  prove  by  his  senses  the  existence 
and  properties  of  the  material  world,  and  to  apply  his  reason- 
ing powers  to  the  investigation  of  truth.  He  repeatedly  afliirms, 
in  the  strongest  manner,  the  liberty  of  the  will.     A  single  passage 

*  Condorcet,  Stewart,  and  most  metaphysical  writers,  agree  in  styling  Descartes 
"the  father  of  the  Modern  Experimental  Philosophy  of  the  Mind." 

t  In  the  second  of  his  Philosophical  Meditations,  he  asks,  '•  What  am  I  ?  A 
thinking  being— that  is,  a  being,  doubting,  knowing,  affirming,  denying,  consenting, 
refusing,  susceptible  of  pleasure  and  pain.  Of  all  these  things  I  might  have  had 
complete  experience  without  any  previous  acquaintance  with  the  qualities  and  laws 
of  matter."  This  is  a  queer  way  of  teaching  that "  choice  is  the  happy  concurrence 
of  material  accidents." 


is^ 


DR.    BEECHER  S    THEOLOGY. 


will  sufficiently  illustrate  his  opinions  on  this  subject.  "  It  is 
wrong,"  he  says,  "  to  imagine  that  we  can  do  anything  which  has 
not  been  fore-ordained  by  God.  But  we  may  readily  embarrass 
ourselves  with  great  difficulties  if  we  attempt  to  reconcile  this  fore- 
ordination  of  God  with  the  liberty  of  our  will)  arbitrii  nostri  liber- 
tate).  But  we  may  extricate  ourselves  from  these  by  remember- 
ing that  our  minds  are  finite  ;  but  that  the  power  of  God  by  which 
he  not  only  foresaw  from  eternity,  but  also  willed  and  fore-ordained 
all  things  that  are  or  can  be,  is  infinite.  And  though  we  may  so 
far  attain  the  idea  of  infinite  power  as  to  perceive  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctlj*  that  it  is  an  attribute  of  God  ;  yet  we  cannot  sufficiently 
comprehend  it,  to  see  in  what  manner  it  leaves  the  actions  of  men 
free.  But  we  are  so  intimately  conscious  of  the  liberty  and  indif- 
ferency  which  we  possess,  that  there  is  nothing  which  we  can  more 
obviously  and  perfectly  comprehend.  And  it  would  be  truly  absurd, 
on  account  of  a  thing  which  we  know  from  its  very  nature  ought 
to  be  incomprehensible,  to  doubt  respecting  another  thing  which  we 
perfectly  comprehend,  and  of  which  we  are  intimately  conscious."* 
Even  the  physical  theory  of  this  illustrious  philosopher  was  not,  as 
Dr.  Beecher  asserts,  "the  atomic  theory."  Descartes  supposed 
that  the  material  universe  was  a  machine  originally  constructed 
and  put  in  motion  by  the  Deity,  and  that  the  multiplicity  of  effects 
that  have  since  taken  place  may  all  have  proceeded  from  one  single 
act  of  his  power.  It  was  to  connect  the  present  motions  and 
changes  in  matter,  with  the  original  impulse  imparted  to  it  by  the 
Creator,  that  he  invented  his  hypothesis  of  "vortices,"  in  direct 
and  avowed  opposition  to  "  the  atomic  theory,"  and  thereby 
involved  himself  in  a  protracted  discussion  with  Gassendi,  the 
great  defender  of  the  Epicurean  system  of  physics.  It  is  strange 
that  Dr.  Beecher  should  have  so  misunderstood  his  physical  theory ; 
and  still  more  strange  that  he  should  have  made  it  the  ground  of 
charging  materialism,  atheism,  and  fatalism,  upon  the  man,  who 
was  the  first  to  establish  clearly  the  distinction  between  mind  and 
matter  as  separate  and  heterogeneous  objects  of  human  knowledge  ; 
who  taught  that  we  have  no  reason  for  trusting  even  our  own 
senses,  or  our  reason,  save  our  confidence  in  the  veracity  of  our 
Maker  ;  and  who  maintained  that  no  truth  can  be  more  certain  and 
undeniable  than  the  liberty  of  the  human  will. 

We  could  easily  show  that  there  are  other  mistakes  in  Dr.  Beecher's 
account  of  the  fatalists,  but  we  have  sufficiently  redeemed  our 
promise.  Our  readers  must  be,  by  this  time,  satisfied  how  far  it  is 
safe  ever  to  trust  to  Dr.  Beecher's  accuracy  in  reporting  upon  the 
opinions  of  others.  We  may  now  freely  admit  "  that  truth  and 
argument  are  not  invidious,"  without  thereby  relieving  Dr.  Beecher 
from  the  charge.     The  next  time  that  he  wishes  to  hurlf  the  calum- 

♦  Princ.  Phil.,  §  xl. 

t  For  a  deserved  reproof  of  Dr.  Beecher  on  this  point,  as  well  as  for  a  detailed  refu- 
tation of  the  errors  of  his  book,  we  refer  the  reader  to  Dr.  Harvey's  work  on  Moral 
Agency,  recently  published. 


DR.  beecher's  theology.  2W 

nious  epithet  of  fatalist  against  those  who  differ  from  him,  let  him 
at  least  see  to  it  that  he  chooses  his  ground  better. 

Before  closing  this  examination  of  Dr.  Beecher's  work  we  wish 
to  state  distinctly,  that  it  contains  much  of  orthodoxy.  The  very 
errors  which  we  have  condemned,  as  we  have  already  remarked, 
are  often  given  as  the  equivalents  of  orthodox  statements.  And 
there  are  many  such  assertions  as  the  following.  "  When  this  per- 
verse decision  is  once  made,  the  heart  is  fully  set,  and  incorrigible 
to  all  motives  and  immutable  in  its  way."  "  The  Scriptures  speak 
of  the  permanence  and  immutability  of  man's  depravity."  "  It  is  a 
part  of  the  terrific  nature  of  sinful  man,  to  baffle  all  motives,  and 
be  voluntarily  but  unchangeably  wicked."  We  desire  to  be  thank- 
ful that  it  belongs  to  Dr.  Beecher,  not  to  us,  to  show  that  that  which 
is  incorrigible  may  nevertheless  be  corrected,  and  though  unchange- 
able, that  it  can  be  changed.  In  a  single  sentence  we  sometimes 
have  the  two  brought  together.  **  Nothing  is  better  supported 
from  Scripture  than  that  man  by  nature  is  in  fact  incapable  of 
recovery  without  the  power  of  God  specially  interposed,  though 
not  an  impossibility  such  as  the  sinner  cannot  overcome."  We 
fear  our  readers  will  think  that  a  work,  in  which  the  same  thing  is 
thus  affirmed  and  denied  within  the  compass  of  a  single  sentence, 
has  already  received  too  extended  a  notice.  We  dismiss  it,  there- 
fore, with  the  expression  of  our  best  wishes  for  the  author,  and  our 
sincere  desire  that  he  may  in  future  be  more  cautious  and  guarded, 
should  he  undertake  to  deal  with  the  controverted  topics  of  meta- 
physics and  theology. 

Since  the  foregoing  article  was  commenced,  we  have  received 
two  publications  from  Dr.  Beecher*  through  the  columns  of  the 
Cincinnati  Journal.  In  the  first  of  these  we  are  arraigned,  in 
company  with  Dr.  Wilson,  Dr.  Hoge,  Mr.  Nettleton,  Dr.  Har- 
vey, and  the  editors  of  the  Presbyterian,  the  Southern  Chris- 
tian Herald,  and  the  Hartford  Watchman,  as  parties  to  a  con- 
spiracy against  him.  Though  he  thinks  these  conspirators  have 
all  done  him  great  wrong,  yet  he  believes  that "  their  sin  and  shame" 
may  be  forgiven,  if  they  will  suitably  "  bewail  the  evil  they  have 
done."  The  object  of  the  conspiracy  is  "  to  write  him  down  in 
reference  to  the  present  crisis  in  our  church ;"  the  proof  of  it  is, 
that  his  book,  and  the  consistency  of  his  conduct,  have  undergone 
examination  at  the  hands  of  several  of  the  individuals  named  within 
a  recent  period,  and  that  period  so  chosen  as  to  preclude  the  possi- 
bility of  a  reply  from  him  prior  to  the  session  of  the  late  General 
Assembly.  We  have  turned  the  subject  in  every  possible  way, 
and  we  are  utterly  at  a  loss  to  conceive  what  connexion  the  review 
of  Dr.  Beecher's  book  had  with  the  sessions  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly. He  was  not  upon  trial  before  that  body — he  was  not  a  dele- 
gate to  it — he  had  no  other  interest  in  it,  that  we  can  discern,  than 
every  other  Presbyterian  minister  had.  It  is  useless,  however,  to 
reason  with  the  fears  of  the  imagination.  And  yet  we  wish  there 
was  some  way  to  lay  the  phantom  of  evil  which  Dr.  Beecher  has 


204  DR.  beecher's  theology. 

conjured  up.  The  most  miserable  man  we  have  ever  knovni  was 
one  who  was  persuaded  that  Bonaparte  was  employing  the  whole 
resources  of  the  French  empire  for  his  capture,  and  that  if  this 
attempt  was  successful,  there  would  then  be  nothing  to  hinder  the 
subjugation  of  the  rest  of  the  world.  The  inconvenience  and 
suffering,  occasioned  by  such  fears,  are  not  less  than  if  the  appre- 
hended danger  were  real.  We  do  therefore  solemnly  assure  Dr. 
Beecher  that  our  article  was  written  without  concert  or  collusion 
with  any  one,  without  a  hint  or  suggestion  from  any  quarter  ;  and 
that  the  proximity  in  the  time  of  its  appearance  to  the  session  of  the 
General  Assembly,  was  purely  accidental.  It  never  once  entered 
our  thoughts  that  a  review  of  his  book  could  have  any  influence  on 
the  proceedings  of  that  body. 

Dr.  Beecher  also  finds  reason,  from  the  simple  fact  that  his  con- 
sistency has  been  impugned,  and  his  book  in  some  respects  cen- 
sured, both  at  East  Windsor  and  at  Princeton,  to  suggest  to  the 
public  whether  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  of  "  a  coalition  of 
Theological  Seminaries,"  for  the  sake  of  "  intimidating"  their  pupils 
and  others  into  their  own  theolofjical  peculiarities,  and  thus  getting 
up  "  a  second  papal  system."  We  shall  make  no  other  comment 
upon  this  note  of  alarm  than  to  quote  the  following  sentence  from 
his  Views  in  Theology.  "  And  never  was  there  a  moment  when 
a  little  joan/c  of  alarm,  or  impatience  of  feeling,  may  turn,  for  good 
or  for  evil,  the  life-giving  or  destroying  waters  of  such  a  tlood 
down  through  distant  generations." 

Dr.  Beecher's  second  communication  to  the  public  is  occupied 
entirely  with  our  former  article,  but  it  will  not  be  necessary  for  us 
to  notice  it  at  any  great  length.  Every  reader  of  the  review  and 
the  reply  will  at  once  see  that  he  has  not  touched  upon  the  diffi- 
culties of  the  case.  The  real  question  is  turned  aside,  and  a  new 
issue  presented.  We  will  merely  illustrate  this  by  a  reference  to 
the  manner  in  which  he  disposes  of  the  extract  which  we  produced 
from  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims.  In  this  passage  it  will  be  remem- 
bered that,  after  stating  the  opinions  which  had  been  held  by  the 
Reformers,  the  Puritans,  and  Edwards,  he  states  that  a  change  had 
taken  place,  and  that  the  New  England  divines  had  long  since 
rejected  *'  the  views  of  the  Refor.mers  on  the  subject  of  original  sin, 
as  consisting  in  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  a  depraved 
nature  transmitted  by  descent ;  that  in  opposition  to  this  they  held 
"  that  depravity  is  wholly  voluntary,  and  consists  in  the  transgres- 
sion of  the  law  under  such  circumstances  as  constitutes  accounta- 
bility and  desert  of  punishment."  We  then  quoted  another  passage 
to  show  that  Dr.  Beecher  himself  held  these  views  which  he  attri- 
buted to  the  New  England  divines.  And  how  does  he  dispose  of 
this  case?  Even  thus.  "To  prove  that  I  deny  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin,  it  is  necessary  to  prove  that  the  standard  New  England 
divines  denied  it,  for  the  change  is  one  which  they  made,  and  my 
concurrence  is  with  them.  If  they  deny  original  sin,  I  deny  it,  and 
if  they  do  not,  I  do  not."     Then  follows  a  string  of  quotations  from 


DR.  beecher's  theology.  205 

New  England  writers,  which  we  have  not  read,  because  they  are 
nothing  to  the  purpose ;  and  moreover  we  do  not  need  to  be 
informed  by  Dr.  Beecher  that  they  taught  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin.  We  know  they  did.  But  what  does  this  prove  ?  Only  what 
we  also  knew  before,  that  Dr.  Beecher  grossly  misrepresented  them 
in  the  extract  in  question.  We  were  aware  that  Dr.  Woods  and 
others  had  complained  that  he  did  not  truly  state  the  New  England^ 
opinions,  in  this  very  controversy  with  the  Christian  Examiner; 
but  we  did  not  think  it  becoming,  at  the  time,  to  take  any  notice  of 
this  misrepresentation,  little  imagining  that  he  himself  would  lay  hold 
of  it  as  the  weapon  of  his  defence.  The  only  effect  of  his  reply  is 
to  draw  down  upon  himself  the  additional  charge  of  having  misre- 
presented the  opinions  of  his  brethren.  There  stand  his  own 
words,  expressly  denying,  on  behalf  of  the  New  England  divines 
in  general,  and  of  himself  in  particular,  the  doctrine  oi  original  sin. 
To  prove  now  that  they  did  not  deny  it,  is  only  to  convict  himself 
of  having  slandered  them.  His  own  denial  still  stands  in  connex- 
ion with  his  explicit  avowal  of  the  same  doctrine  in  his  Views  in 
Theology,  and  his  declaration  that  he  has  never  changed  his  opi- 
nions upon  the  subject. 


ESSAY    VII. 

THE   DOCTRINES  OF  THE   NEW  ENGLAND 
CHURCHES/ 


Our  readers  may  be  somewhat  surprised  at  seeing,  in  our 
margin,  the  title  of  a  book  pubHshed  near  a  century  ago.  The 
character  of  this  periodical,  however,  does  not  restrict  us  to 
the  notice  of  works  of  a  recent  date.  The  past  is  the  mirror  of 
the  present,  as  the  present  is  of  the  future.  What  is  now  has 
been  before,  and  shall  be  hereafter.  It  is  well,  at  times,  to  look 
back  and  see  how  the  trials  of  our  forefathers  agree  with  our  own ; 
to  observe  how  the  errors  and  disorders  with  which  we  have  to 
contend  afflicted  them  ;  to  notice  how  the  methods  adopted  in  for- 
mer ages  to  secure  the  introduction  of  false  doctrines  answer  to 
the  devices  of  the  present  day  ;  and  how  signally  God  blessed  the 
faithful  efforts  of  his  servants  in  defence  of  his  truth,  and  how  uni- 
formly compromise  and  subserviency  have  been  followed  by  the 
triumph  of  error  and  the  decline  of  religion.  The  history  of  the 
church  is  replete  with  instructions  on  all  these  points  ;  and  these 
instructions  are  presented  in  the  history  of  the  church  in  our  own 
country  in  a  form  peculiarly  adapted  to  our  present  circumstances. 
The  pious  founders  of  the  Congregational  and  Presbyterian 
churches  in  America  brought  with  them  the  very  doctrines  which 
the  friends  of  truth  in  those  churches  are  now  struggling  to  main- 
tain ;  they  had  to  contend  with  the  same  errors  and  disorders,  and 
they  resisted  them  by  the  same  means  which  we  are  now  endea- 
vouring to  employ,  viz.,  testimony,  discussion  and  discipline. 
Their  fidelity  produced  just  the  same  outcry  about  ecclesiastical 
tyranny,  inquisitorial  powers,  freedom  of  thought,  march  of  intel- 
lect, new  discoveries,  with  which  the  ears  of  the  public  are  now 
assailed.  The  same  plea  of  essential  agreement,  of  mere  shades 
of  difference,  of  the  evils  of  controversy,  was  urged  then,  as  now. 
But  blessed  be  God,  not  with  the  same  success.  The  men  of  those 
generations  did  not  allow  themselves  to  be  either  frightened  or 

•  Originilly  published  in  1839,  in  review  of  the  following  work:—"  A  Brief  His- 
tory and  Vindication  of  the  Doctrines  received  and  established  in  the  Churches  of 
New  England,  with  a  specimen  of  the  New  Scheme  of  Religion  beginning  to  pre- 
vail."   By  Thomas  Clap,  A.  M.,  President  of  Yale  College. 


DOCTRINES    OF    NEW    ENGLAND    CHURCHES.  207« 

beguiled.  And  as  long  as  they  retained  their  courage  and  fidelity, 
their  efforts  were  crowned  with  success. 

There  is  another  instructive  feature  in  the  history  of  the  last 
century.  Those  who  could  not  endure  sound  doctrine,  would  not 
endure  sound  discipline.  As  soon  as  they  had  departed  Irom  the 
faith,  they  got  their  eyes  wide  open  to  the  evils  of  ecclesiastical 
authority.  This  opposition  to  supervision  manifested  itself  in  Con- 
necticut in  two  ways.  Sonne  objected  to  the  examination  into 
the  doctrinal  opinions  of  ministers,  or  to  the  exercise  of  disci- 
pline for  the  prevailing  errors  ;  while  others  withdrew  from  the 
consociated  churches  and  set  up  for  themselves.  These  separat- 
ists called  themselves  strict  Congregationalists.  One  of  their 
standing  subjects  of  complaint  was  the  supervision  of  the  consoci- 
ation. This  was  found  to  be  very  inconvenient.  It  is  readily 
admitted  that  many  Christians  have  honestly  and  from  good 
motives  preferred  the  purely  independent  system  of  church 
government,  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  then,  as  now,  many 
who  advocated  that  system  did  it  because  of  the  convenient  lati- 
tude which  it  affords  for  all  kinds  of  doctrine. 

So  much  has  been  said  of  late  years  of  the  contentions  in  the 
Presbyterian  church  ;  such  assiduous  efforts  have  been  made  to 
produce  the  impression  that  there  is  either  s6me  great  evil  in  Pres- 
byterianism,  or  that  its  present  advocates  are  peculiarly  and  wick- 
edly bigoted,  that  we  have  thought  it  wise,  and  likely  in  various 
ways  to  be  useful,  to  recall  attention  to  one  chapter  of  the  eccle- 
siastical history  of  Connecticut.  It  will  be  seen  that  so  long  as 
there  is  a  regard  for  divine  truth  and  for  real  religion  in  the 
church,  there  will  be  controversy  and  contention  when  errorists 
arise  and  endeavour  to  propagate  their  doctrines.  There  can  be 
no  surer  sign  of  degeneracy  than  the  peaceful  progress  of  error. 
If,  therefore,  the  same  or  analogous  errors  and  disorders  wliich 
a  century  ago  agitated  many  parts  of  New  England  to  its 
centre,  are  now  allowed  to  prevail  without  opposition,  it  will 
prove  to  all  the  world  that  the  faith  and  the  spirit  of  the 
Puritans  have  perished  among  their  descendants.  It  is  not 
our  intention,  though  largely  in  the  debt  of  a  certain  class  of  our 
New  England  brethren,  to  read  them  a  lesson  out  of  their  own 
history.  It  is  not  lor  their  benefit  so  much  as  for  our  own,  that 
we  bring  to  the  notice  of  our  readers  President  Clap's  Defence  of 
the  Doctrines  of  the  New  England  Churches.  It  will  serve  to 
confirm  the  purpose  and  strengthen  the  faith  of  the  friends  of  truth 
in  our  church,  to  see  that  they  are  fighting  the  same  battle  which 
has  once  before  been  fought  and  won,  and  that  on  New  England 
ground.  It  will  serve  to  refute  the  calumny  of  those  who  represent 
the  struggle  in  our  church,  as  an  opposition  to  genuine  New 
England  doctrines.  It  will  show  that  we  are  now  opposing  what 
all  sound  and  faithful  Puritans  ever  have  resisted ;  and  that  the 
reproaches  which  we  now  suffer  were  just  as  freely  lavished  on 
New  England  men  a  hundred  years  ago. 


,«B08  DOCTRINES    OF    NEW    ENGLAND    CHURCHES. 

There  is  so  little'  in  this  pamphlet  which  is  not  directly  applica- 
ble to  the  present  times,  that  we  shall  do  little  more  than  extract 
its  contents,  giving,  it  may  be,  an  occasional  remark  by  way  of 
application  or  improvement. 

"  The  great  motive,"  says  President  Clap,  "  which  induced  the 
first  planters  of  New  England  to  leave  their  pleasant  European 
seats,  and  settle  in  this  howling  wilderness,  was,  that  they  might 
enjoy  religion  in  the  purity  of  its  doctrines,  discipline  and  worship, 
and  transmit  the  same  down  to  the  latest  posterity.  The  doctrines 
which  they  believed  and  professed,  were  those  which  had  been 
generally  established  in  all  ages  of  the  Christian  church  ;  and  more 
especially  summed  up,  and  declared  in  the  several  confessions  of 
faith  in  the  various  Churches  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  ;  though 
there  were  some  lesser  circumstances  in  their  ecclesiastical  discipline 
which  were  in  some  measure  peculiar  to  themselves.  For  the  sake  of 
these  inestima  ble  privileges,  they  undertook  to  settle  a  new  and  uncul- 
tivated country,  filled  with  the  most  savage  and  barbarous  enemies  ; 
and  nothing  but  these  religious  prospects  could  induce  them  to  believe 
that  they  did  not  purchase  it  at  too  dear  a  rate.  And  the  leaving  the 
gospel  in  its  purity,  they  judged  to  be  a  better  inheritance  to  their 
posterity,  than  the  valuable  soil  which  they  acquired  with  such 
incredible  hardship,  danger,  and  fatigue :  therefore  any  attempt 
to  deprive  them  of  their  religion  is  as  injurious  as  to  deprive 
them  of  their  lands,  or  to  change  their  happy  form  of  civil  govern- 
ment. 

"  Soon  after  their  first  settlement,  there  was  a  general  Synod  of 
the  elders  and  messengers  of  all  the  churches  in  New  England,  in 
the  year  1648,  wherein  they  unanimouslydeclared  their  sentiments  in 
the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  in  these  words,  viz.  *  This  Synod,  hav- 
mg  perused  and  considered  (with  much  gladness  of  heart,  and 
thankfulness  to  God)  ihe  Confession  of  Faith  lately  published  by 
the  Reverend  Assembly  in  England,  do  judge  it  to  be  very  holy, 
orthodox  and  judicious  in  all  matters  of  faith  ;  and  do  therefore 
freely  and  fully  consent  thereunto,  for  the  substance  ;  only  in 
matters  of  church  government  and  discipline,  we  refer  ourselves 
to  the  platform  of  church  discipline  agreed  upon  by  this  assembly.' 
And  accordingly  published  it  as  *  their  Confession  of  Faith,  and  as 
the  doctrine  constantly  taught  and  professed  in  these  churches.* 

"  In  their  preface  they  say,  *  that  it  has  been  the  laudable  prac- 
tice of  the  churches  of  Christ,  in  all  ages,  to  give  a  public  account 
to  the  world  of  the  faith  and  order  of  the  gospel  among  them ; 
and  that  it  has  a  tendency  to  public  edification,  by  maintaining  the 
faith  entire  in  itself,  and  unity  and  harmony  with  other  churches.' 

"  Our  churches,  say  they,  believe  and  profess  the  same  doctrine 
which  has  been  generally  received  in  all  the  reformed  churches  in 
Europe.  I  suppose  the  Assembly's*  Catechism  was  not  expressly 
mentioned,  because  before  this  it  had  been  generally  received  and 
taught  to  children. 

"  A  few   years  after  there   was   a   Synod   of  Congregational 


i 


DOCTRINES    OP   NEW   ENGLAND   CHURCHES.  209 

churches  held  at  the  Savoy,  in  London  ;  wherein  they  consented 
to  the  Westminster  Confession  aforesaid ;  only  they  left  out  some 
things  relating  to  church  discipline  and  divorce,  and  amended  some 
few  expressions.     This  is  called  the  Savoy  Confession. 

"  A  general  Synod  of  the  elders  and  messengers  of  the  churches 
in  New  England,  in  16S0,  approved  of  and  consented  to  this  con- 
fession ;  and  the  general  court  at  Boston  ordered  it  to  be  printed 
*  for  the  benefit  of  the  churches  in  the  present  and  after  times.* 
The  Synod,  in  their  preface,  say,  *  That  it  must  needs  tend  much 
to  the  honour  of  the  blessed  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  when  many 
churches  join  together  in  their  testimony  for  the  truth.  That  the 
Lord  hath  signally  owned  the  Confessions  of  the  four  first  general 
Councils  or  Synods  for  the  suppression  of  heresies  in  the  primi- 
tive times.  That  the  Confessions  of  the  Bohemians,  Waldenses, 
and  other  Protestant  reformed  churches  (which  also  show 
what  harmony  of  doctrine  there  is  among  all  sincere  profes- 
sors of  the  truth)  have  been  of  singular  use,  not  only  to  those 
who  then  lived,  but  also  to  posterity,  even  to  this  day.  That 
it  must  needs  be  a  work  pleasing  unto  God,  for  his  servants  to 
declare  to  the  world  what  those  principles  of  truth  are,  which  they 
have  received,  and  purpose  to  live  and  die  in  the  profession  of ; 
nor  are  they  worthy  of  the  name  of  Christians,  who  refuse  to 
declare  what  they  believe/  They  conclude  with  these  words : 
'  What  hours  of  temptation  may  overtake  these  churches,  is  not  for 
us  to  say  ;  only  the  Lord  doth  many  times  so  order  things,  that 
when  his  people  have  made  a  good  confession,  they  shall  be  put 
upon  the  trial  some  way  or  other  concerning  their  sincerity  in  it* 
The  Lord  grant  that  the  loins  of  our  minds  may  be  so  girt  about 
with  truth  that  we  may  be  able  to  withstand  in  an  evil  day,  and! 
having  done  all  to  stand.* 

"  In  the  year  1690,  there  was  a  meeting  of  the  Presbyterian  and 
Congregational  ministers  in  England,  who,  agreeing  perfectly  in 
points  of  doctrine,  compromised  those  small  circumstantials  wherein 
they  had  disagreed  in  church  discipline.  This  they  published  under 
the  title  of  Heads  of  Agreement  assented  to  hy  the  united  Ministers 
formerly  called  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational ;  in  which 
they  declare  their  approbation  of  *  the  doctrinal  articles  of  the 
church  of  England  ;  the  Confession  of  Faith  ;  the  larger  and 
shorter  Catechisms  composed  by  the  assembly  of  divines  at  West- 
minster, and  the  Savoy  Confession,  as  agreeable  to  the  word  of 
God.' 

"  In  the  year  1708,  there  was  a  general  Synod  of  all  the  churches 
in  the  colony  of  Connecticut,  assembled  by  delegation,  at  Saybrook, 
in  which  they  unanimously  consented  to  the  Savoy  Confession, 
and  the  heads  of  agreement  before  mentioned  ;  and  drew  up  some 
articles  for  the  administration  of  church  discipline.  One  principal 
thing  wherein  these  articles  differed  from  what  had  been  before 
generally  received  and  practised  in  the  New  English  churches, 
was  this,  that  whereas  the  Cambridge  platform  had  said  in  general 

14 


210  DOCTRINES    OF   NEW    ENGLAND    CHURCHES. 

terms,  that  councils  should  consist  of  the  neighbouring  churches, 
and  some  questions  had  arisen  who  should  be  esteemed  the  neigh- 
bouring churches,  and  what  number  should  be  called  in  particular 
cases  :  these  articles  reduced  it  to  a  greater  certainty,  that  councils 
should  consist  of  the  neighbouring  churches  in  the  county  ; 
they  forming  themselves  into  one  or  more  consociations  for  that 
purpose. 

"  These  three  things,  viz.,  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Heads  of 
Agreement,  and  Articles  of  Church  Discipline,  were  presented  to 
the  General  Court  at  Hartford  in  May,  1708;  and  they  declared 
their  great  approbation  of  them,  and  *  ordain  that  all  the 
churches  in  this  government,  thus  united  in  doctrine,  worship 
and  discipline,  shall  be  owned  and  acknowledged  established  by 
law.' 

"  The  Synod  of  Saybrook,  in  their  preface,  say,  that  *  the  usage 
of  the  Christian  church,  whose  faith  rested  wholly  on  the  word  of 
God,  respecting  Confessions  of  Faith,  is  very  ancient,  and  necessary 
for  the  correcting,  condemning,  and  suppressing  of  heresy  and 
error.  For]  this  purpose,  ancient  and  famous  Confessions  of  Faith 
have  been  agreed  upon  by  Oecumenical  Councils,  e.  g.  of  Nice, 
against  Arius  ;  of  Constantinople,  against  Macedonius,  &c.  That 
the  several  reformed  nations  agreed  upon  Confessions  of  Faith, 
famous  in  the  world,  and  of  special  service  to  theirs  and  the  suc- 
ceeding ages.  That  the  faith  of  these  churches  is  the  same  which 
was  generally  received  in  all  the  reformed  churches  in  Europe. 
This  Confession  of  Faith  they  say  they  offer  as  their  firm  persua- 
sion, well  and  truly  grounded  on  the  word  of  God,  and  commend 
the  same  to  the  people  of  this  colony  to  be  examined,  accepted 
and  constantly  maintained.  That  having  applied  the  rule  of  holy 
Scripture  to  the  articles  of  this  Confession,*  and  found  the  same  to 
be  the  eternal  truths  of  God,  you  remember  and  hold  them  fast : 
contend  earnestly  for  them,  as  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints : 
value  them  as  your  great  charter ;  the  instrument  of  your  salva- 
tion, and  the  evidence  of  your  not  failing  of  the  grace  of  God,  and 
of  your  receiving  a  crown  that  fadeth  not  away.  Maintain  them, 
and  every  of  them,  all  your  days,  with  undaunted  resolution 
against  all  opposition,  whatever  the  event  may  be  ;  and  the  same 
transmit  safe  and  pure  to  posterity  ;  having  bought  the  truth,  sell 
it  not :  believe  the  truth  will  make  you  free.  Faithful  is  he  that 
hath  promised.     Let  no  man  take  away  your  crown.' 

"  In  this  state  our  pious  forefathers  established  the  pure  religion 
of  Christ  in  this  land,  and  left  it  as  the  best  legacy  to  their 
posterity.  They  were  doubtless  men  of  great  piety ;  fervent  in 
prayer,  and  assiduous  in  studying  the  sacred  Scriptures,  in  order 
to  find  out  the  truth  and  recommend  it  to  their  posterity.  They 
did  not  undertake  to  make  a  religion,  but  to  declare  it  from  the 

*  "  By  this  is  meant,  not  the  applying  those  few  texts  of  Scripture  only,  which 
are  set  in  the  margin  (for  it  is  probable  they  were  not  put  there  by  the  Assembly  of 
Divines),  but  every  text  of  Scripture  applicable  to  these  articles." 


i 


DOCTRINES    OF   NEW   ENGLAND    CHURCHES.  211 

word  of  God :  nor  did  they  suppose  that  their  faith  or  belief  should 
be  the  ground  and  foundation  of  ours,  but  resolved  all  into  the 
authority  of  God  speaking  in  his  word. 

"  Among  the  various  means  they  used  to  propagate  this  pure 
religion  to  their  posterity,  they  esteemed  the  erecting  of  colleges 
and  subordinate  schools  to  be  the  principal.  To  this  purpose  the 
general  synod  at  Boston  in  1679  fully  express  their  sentiments. 

*  That  we  read  of  schools  and  colleges  in  scripture  ;  1  Chron.  xxv., 
8  ;  Mai.  ii.,  12  ;  Acts  xix..  9,  and  xxii.,  3.  That  Samuel,  Elijah  and 
Elisha,  were  presidents  of  the  schools  of  the  prophets  :  1  Sam.  xix., 
18.  That  Ecclesiastical  History  informs  us  that  great  care  was 
taken  by  the  apostles  and  their  immediate  successors,  to  settle 
schools  at  all  places  ;  that  so  the  interest  of  religion  might  be  pre- 
served, and  truth  propagated  to  all  succeeding  generations.  We 
have  reason  to  bless  God,  who  hath  put  it  into  the  hearts  of  our 
fathers  to  take  care  in  this  matter ;  for  these  churches  would  have 
been  in  a  deplorable  state  if  the  Lord  had  not  blessed  the  college, 
so  as  thence  to  supply  most  of  our  churches." 

" '  When  the  people  in  New  England  were  poor  and  but  few  in 
number,  there  was  a  spirit  to  encourage  learning  ;  and  as  we  desire 
that  religion  should  flourish,  it  concerns  us  to  endeavour  that  the 
college  and  inferior  schools  be  duly  inspected  and  encouraged.' 
Thus  far  that  synod. 

"The  fathers  of  the  colony  of  Connecticut,  from  the  same  pious 
and  religious  design,  erected  a  college  among  themselves  in  the 
year  1701 :  the  scheme  was  concerted  principally  by  the  ministers, 
with  an  especial  design  to  maintain  and  propagate  that  pure  reli- 
gion, which  was  before  settled  among  them  ;  as  appears  by  sundry 
letters  to  and  from  those  ministers  who  first  undertook  to  found  this 
school,  dated  before  the  charter,  and  still  extant. 

"  The  charter  is  predicated  *  upon  the  petition  of  sundry  well- 
disposed  persons,  of  their  sincere  regard  to,  and  zeal  for,  upholding 
and  propagating  of  the  Christian  Protestant  religion,  by  a  suc- 
cession of  learned  and  orthodox  men*     And   the  grant  was  made 

*  to  encourage  such  a  pious  and  religious  undertaking.*  At  their 
first  meeting  they  came  into  the  following  solemn  act. 

"  At  a  meeting  of  the  collegiate  undertakers  holden  at  Saybrook, 
November  11,  A.D.  1701,  present,  the  Revs.  Israel  Chauncey, 
Thomas  Buckingham,  Abraham  Pierson,  Samuel  Andrew,  James 
Pierpoint,  Noadiah  Russel,  Joseph  Webb. 

"  *  Whereas  it  was  the  glorious  public  design  of  our  now  blessed 
fathers,  in  their  remove  from  Europe  into  these  parts  of  America, 
both  to  plant,  and  under  the  Divine  blessing,  to  propagate  in  this 
wilderness  the  blessed  reformed  Protestant  religion,  in  the  purity 
of  its  order  and  worship  ;  not  only  to  their  posterity  but  also  to  the 
barbarous  natives :  in  which  great  enterprise  they  wanted  not  the 
royal  commands  and  favour  of  his  majesty  king  Charles  the  Second 
to  authorize  and  invigorate  them. 

"  *  We,  their  unworthy  posterity,  lamenting  our  past  neglects  of 


2l2  DOCTRINES    OF    NEW   ENGLAND    CHURCHES. 

this  grand  errand,  and  sensible  of  the  equal  obligations  better  to 
prosecute  the  same  end,  are  desirous  in  our  generation  to  be  ser- 
viceable thereunto. 

"  *  Whereunto  the  religious  and  liberal  education  of  suitable 
youth  is,  under  the  blessing  of  God,  a  chief  and  most  probable 
expedient.  Therefore,  that  we  might  not  be  wanting  in  cherishing 
the  present  observable  and  pious  disposition  of  many  well-minded 
people,  to  dedicate  their  children  and  substance  unto  God  in  such 
a  good  service  ;  and  being  ourselves  with  sundry  other  Reverend 
Elders,  not  only  desired  by  our  goodly  people  to  undertake  as  trus- 
tees for  erecting,  forming,  ordering  and  regulating  a  collegiate 
school  for  the  advancement  of  such  an  education:  but  having  also 
obtained  of  our  present  religious  government,  both  full  liberty  and 
assistance  by  their  donations  to  such  an  use  :  tokens  likewise  that 
particular  persons  will  not  be  wanting  in  their  beneficence  :  do,  in 
duty  to  God,  and  the  weal  of  pur  country,  undertake  in  the  afore- 
said design.  And  being  now  met,  according  to  the  liberties  and 
aids  now  granted  to  us  for  the  use  aforesaid,  do  order  and  appoint, 
that  there  shall  be,  and  hereby  is  erected  and  formed  a  collegiate 
school,  wherein  shall  be  taught  the  liberal  arts  and  languages,  in 
such  place  or  places  in  Connecticut,  as  the  said  trustees  with  their 
associates  and  successors,  do  or  shall,  from  time  to  time,  see  cause 
to  order. 

"  *  For  the  orderly  and  effectual  management  of  this  affair,  we 
agree  to,  and  hereby  appoint  and  confirm  the  following  rules : 

"  *  1st.  That  the  rector  take  special  care,  as  of  the  moral  behaviour 
of  the  students  at  all  times,  so  with  industry  to  instruct  and  ground 
them  well  in  theoretical  divinity ;  and  to  that  end  shall  neither  by 
himself  nor  by  any  other  person  whomsoever,  allow  them  to  be 
instructed  and  grounded  in  any  other  system  or  synopsis  of  divinity 
than  such  as  the  said  trustees  do  order  and  appoint :  but  shall  take 
effectual  care  that  the  said  students  be  weekly,  at  such  seasons  as 
he  shall  see  cause  to  appoint,  caused  memoriter  to  recite  the  Assem- 
bly's Catechism  in  Latin,  and  Ames's  Theological  Theses  ;  of  which, 
as  also  Ames's  Cases,  he  shall  make,  or  cause  to  be  made,  from 
time  to  time,  such  explanations  as  may  (through  the  blessing  of 
God)  be  most  conducive  to  their  establishment  in  the  principles  of 
the  Christian  Protestant  religion. 

"  *  2d.  The  rector  shall  also  cause  the  Scripture  daily  (except 
on  the  Sabbath),  morning  and  evening,  to  be  read  by  the  students 
at  the  times  of  prayer  in  the  school,  according  to  the  laudable  order 
and  usages  of  Harvard  College,  making  expositions  upon  the  same, 
and  upon  the  Sabbath  shall  either  expound  practical  theology  or 
cause  the  non-graduated  students  to  repeat  sermons,  and  in  ajl 
other  ways  according  to  his  best  discretion  shall  at  all  times  stu- 
diously endeavour  in  the  education  of  the  students,  to  promote  the 
power  and  purity  of  religion  and  the  best  edification  of  these  New 
England  churches.^ 

"  The  founders  of  the  college  and  their  successors  have,  upon 


DOCTRINES    OP    NEW   ENGLAND    CHURCHES.  213 

several  times  and  occasions,  come  into  some  further  and  more 
explicit  resolves,  in  pursuance  to  the  original  fundamental  plan ; 
particularly, 

"  At  a  meeting  of  the  trustees  of  Yale  College,  in  New  Haven, 
October  17,  1722  :  present,  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Samuel  Andrew, 
Timothy  Woodbridge,  Samuel  Russell,  Joseph  Webb,  John  Daven- 
port, Thomas  Buckingham,  Stephen  Buckingham,  Thomas  Rug- 
gles,  Eliphalet  Adams. 

"*  16.  Voted,  That  all  such  persons  as  shall  hereafter  be  elected 
to  the  office  of  rector  or  tutor  in  this  college  shall,  before  they  are 
accepted  therein,  before  the  trustees,  declare  their  assent  to  the 
Confession  of  Faith  owned  and  consented  to  by  the  elders  and  mes- 
sengers of  the  churches  in  the  Colony  of  Connecticut,  assembled 
by  delegation  at  Saybrook,  Sept.  9,  1708,  and  confirmed  by  act 
of  the  General  Assembly  ;  and  shall  particularly  give  satisfaction 
to  them,  of  the  soundness  of  their  faith,  in  opposition  to  Arminian 
and  Prelatical  corruptions,  or  any  other  of  dangerous  consequence 
to  the  purity  and  peace  of  our  churches  :  but  if  it  cannot  be  before 
the  trustees,  it  shall  be  in  the  power  of  any  two  trustees,  with  the 
rector,  to  examine  a  tutor  with  respect  to  the  confession  and  sound- 
ness of  faith  in  opposition  to  said  corruptions. 

"*  17.  Voted,  That  upon  just  ground  of  suspicion  of  the  rector 
or  tutor's  inclination  to  Arminian  or  Prelatic  principles,  a  meeting 
of  the  trustees  shall  be  called  as  soon  as  may  be  to  examine  into 
the  case. 

"*  18.  Voted,  That  if  any  other  officer  or  member  of  this  col- 
lege shall  give  just  grounds  of  suspicion  of  their  being  corrupted 
with  Arminian  or  Prelatical  principles,*  or  of  any  other  of  dan- 
gerous consequence  to  the  peace  and  purity  of  our  churches,  the 
rector  and  tutor  shall  call  them  upon  examination  according  to  the 
articles  of  the  said  Confession ;  and  in  case  they  refuse  to  sub- 
mit thereto,  or  do  not  give  a  satisfactory  account  of  their  uncor- 
ruptness,  they  shall  suspend  them  to  the  next  meeting  of  the 
trustees.' 

"  N.  B.  Five  of  the  first  founders  were  at  this  time  alive,  and 
four  present  at  the  passing  of  these  acts. 

"  At  a  meeting  of  the  president  and  fellows  of  Yale  College, 
November  21,  1751,  present,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Thomas  Clap,  Presi- 
dent ;  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Jared  Eliot,  Joseph  Noyes,  Anthony  Stod- 
dard, Benjamin  Lord,  William  Russel,  Thomas  Ruggles,  Solomon 
Williams,  and  Noah  Hobart,  Fellows. 

*  •*  By  Prelatical  principles,  I  suppose,  they  intend  the  opinion  that  Prelacy  or 
Episcopacy  is,  by  divine  right,  absolutely  necessary  to  the  being  of  the  Christian 
ministry  and  church ;  which  opinion  being  entirely  subversive  of  these  churches 
which  the  college  was  founded  to  support,  those  who  endeavour  to  propagate  it 
counteract  the  fundamental  design  of  the  college :  but  such  as  suppose  that  Episco- 
pacy is  only  most  convenient  as  tending  to  maintain  unity  and  order,  and  don't  nul- 
lify Presbyterian  ordination  (which  is  the  opinion  of  the  greatest  part  of  the  church 
of  England,  in  England),  may  consistently  be  admitted  members  of  our  college,  and 
to  the  communion  of  our  churches  too,  as  has  been  the  practice  ever  since  there 
have  been  churchmen  in  the  colony." 


214  DOCTRINES    OF    NEW    ENGLAND    CHURCHES. 

"  *  Whereas  the  principal  design  of  the  pious  founders  of  this 
college  was  to  educate  and  train  up  youth  for  the  ministry  in  the 
churches  of  this  Colony,  according  to  the  doctrine,  discipline  and 
mode  of  worship  received  and  practised  in  them  ;  and  they  par- 
ticularly ordered  that  the  students  should  be  established  in  the 
principles  of  religion  and  grounded  in  polemical  divinity,  accord- 
ing to  the  Assembly's  Catechism,  Dr.  Ames's  Medulla  and  Cases 
of  Conscience  ;  and  that  special  care  should  be  taken,  in  the  edu- 
cation of  students,  not  to  suffer  them  to  be  instructed  in  any  dif- 
ferent principles  or  doctrines ;  and  that  all  proper  methods  or 
measures  should  be  taken  to  promote  the  power  and  purity  of  reli- 
gion, and  the  best  edification  and  peace  of  these  churches : 

"  *  We,  the  successors  of  the  said  founders,  being  in  our  own 
judgments  of  the  same  principles  in  religion  with  our  predeces- 
sors, and  esteeming  ourselves  bound  in  fidelity  to  the  trust  com- 
mitted to  us  to  carry  on  the  same  design,  and  improve  all  the  col- 
lege estate  descended  to  us  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  given, 
do  explicitly  and  fully  resolve,  as  follows,  viz. : 

"  '  1.  That  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are 
the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  in  all  matters  of  religion,  and 
the  standard  by  which  all  doctrines,  principles  and  practices  in 
religion  are  to  be  tried  and  judged. 

"  *  2.  That  the  Assembly's  Catechism  and  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  received  and  established  in  the  churches  of  this  Colony 
(which  is  an  abridgment  of  the  Westminster  Confession),  contain 
a  true  and  just  summary  of  the  most  important  doctrines  of  the 
Christian  religion ;  and  that  the  true  sense  of  the  sacred  Scriptures 
is  justly  collected  and  summed  up  in  these  compositions ;  and  all 
expositions  of  Scripture,  pretending  to  deduce  any  doctrines  or 
positions  contrary  to  the  doctrines  laid  down  in  these  composures, 
we  are  of  opinion  are  wrong  and  erroneous. 

"  '  3.  [(  any  doubt  or  dispute  should  happen  to  arise  about  the 
true  meaning  and  sense  of  any  particular  terms  or  phrases  in  the 
said  composures,  they  shall  be  understood  and  taken  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  such  terms  and  phrases  have  been  generally  used 
in  the  writings  of  Protestant  divines,  and  especially  in  their  public 
confessions  of  faith.* 

"  '  4.  That  we  will  always  take  all  proper  and  reasonable  mea- 
sures, such  as  Christian  prudence  shall  direct,  to  continue  and  pro- 
pagate the  doctrines  contained  in  these  summaries  of  religion,  in 
this  college,  and  to  transmit  them  to  all  future  successions  and 
generations ;  and  to  use  the  like  measures  to  prevent  the  contrary 
doctrines  from  prevailing  in  this  society. 

"  *  5.  That  every  person  who  shall  hereafter  be  chosen  a  presi- 
dent, fellow,  professor  of  divinity,  or  tutor,  in  this  college,  shall 
before  he  enters  upon  the  execution  of  his  office,  publicly  give  his 
consent  to  the  Catechism  and  Confession  of  Faith,  as  containing  a 

*  "  The  general  rule  of  interpreting  all  writings  is,  that  words  and  phrases  shall 
be  taken  in  the  same  sense  in  which  they  are  commonly  used  in  other  writings  upon 
the  same  subject." 


DOCTRINES    op*  NEW   ENGLAND    CHURCHES.  215 

just  summary  of  the  Christian  rehgion,  as  before  expressed,  and 
renounce  all  doctrines  or  principles  contrary  thereunto :  and  shall 
pass  through  such  an  examination  as  the  corporation  shall  think 
proper,  in  order  to  their  being  fully  satisfied  that  he  shall  do  it 
truly  without  any  evasion  or  equivocation. 

"  *  6.  That  since  every  such  officer  is  admitted  into  his  post 
upon  the  condition  aforesaid,  if  he  shall  afterwards  change  his  sen- 
timents, entertain  any  contrary  set  of  principles  or  scheme  of  reli- 
gion, and  disbelieve  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  said  Catechism 
or  Confession  of  Faith,  he  cannot,  consistent  with  common  honesty 
and  fidelity,  continue  in  his  post,  but  is  bound  to  resign  it. 

"  *  7.  That  when  it  is  suspected  by  any  of  the  corporation,  that 
any  such  officer  has  fallen  from  the  profession  of  his  faith,  as  before 
mentioned,  and  is  gone  into  any  contrary  scheme  of  principles,  he 
shall  be  examined  by  the  corporation. 

"  *  8.  That  inasmuch  as  it  is  especially  necessary  that  a  profes- 
sor of  divinity  should  be  sound  in  the  faith ;  besides  the  common 
tests  before  mentioned,  he  shall  publicly  exhibit  a  full  confession  of 
his  faith,  drawn  up  by  him  in  his  own  words  and  phrases,  and  shall 
in  full  and  express  terms  renounce  all  such  errors  as  shall  in  any 
considerable  measure  prevail  at  the  time  of  his  introduction ;  and 
if  any  doubt  or  question  shall  arise  about  any  doctrine  or  position, 
whether  it  be  truth  or  error,  it  shall  be  judged  by  the  word  of  God 
taken  in  that  sense  of  it  which  is  contained  and.declared  in  the  said 
Catechism  and  Confession  of  Faith ;  as  being  a  just  exposition  of 
the  word  of  God  in  those  doctrines  or  articles  which  are  contained 
in  them.* 

"  *  9.  That  every  person  who  shall  be  chosen  president,  fellow, 
professor  of  divinity,  or  tutor  in  this  college,  shall  give  his  consent 
to  the  rules  of  church  discipline  established  in  the  ecclesiastical  con- 
stitution of  the  churches  of  this  Colony :  it  being  understood  that 
our  ecclesiastical  constitution  may  admit  of  additions  or  alterations, 
in  such  circumstances  as  according  to  our  Confession  of  Faith  are 
to  be  regulated  by  the  light  of  nature  and  the  rules  of  Christian 
prudence.  And  it  is  especially  declared  that  if  any  person  shall 
deny  the  validity  of  the  ordination  of  ministers  of  this  Colony,  com- 
monly called  Presbyterian  or  Congregational,  or  shall  hold  that  it 
is  necessary  or  convenient  that  such  ministers  should  be  re-or- 
dained in  order  to  render  their  administrations  valid,  it  shall  be 
deemed  an  essential  departure  from  our  ecclesiastical  constitution, 
and  inconsistent  with  the  intentions  of  the  founders  of  this  college, 
that  such  a  person  should  be  chosen  in  it. 

"  '10.  Yet  we  would  suppose  that  it  is  not  inconsistent  with 
the  general  design  of  the  founders,  and  is  agreeable  to  our  own 
inclination,  to  admit  Pi-otestants  of  all  denominations  to  send  their 

*  "  This  does  not  make  the  catechism  and  confession  the  rule  of  expounding  Scrip- 
ture (aa  some  have  suggested),  for  the  best  rule  of  interpreting  Scripture,  is  the 
Scripture  itself,  i.  e.,  comparing  one  place  with  another.  See  Confession,  chap.  1, 
sect.  9  It  was  principally  by  this  means,  the  Assembly  found  out  the  true  meaning 
of  Scripture,  and  expressed  and  declared  it  in  those  composures." 


216  DOCTRINES    OP    NEW    ENGLAND    CHURCHES. 

children  to  receive  the  advantage  of  an  education  in  this  college : 
provided  that  v^^hile  they  are  here  they  conform  to  all  the  laws 
and  orders  of  it. 

As  we  understand  this  matter  these  statutes  were  in  force  until 
within  a  few  years.  It  has  been  said  indeed  that  the  usage  of  the 
institution,  since  the  accession  of  President  Stiles  in  1773,  allowed 
of  considerable  latitude  in  this  subscription  ;  that  the  substanpe  of 
the  confession  is  all  that  any  officer  was  required  to  assent  to.  In 
reference  to  this  subject  the  Rev.  Daniel  Dow  of  Connecticut,  in 
the  appendix  to  his  pamphlet  on  the  New  Haven  Theology,  asks 
the  following  question :  "  Whether  the  ancient  Confession  of  Faith 
be  not  a  part  of  the  constitution  of  Yale  College,  upon  which  the 
funds  of  the  college  are  established.  And  if  it  be,  whether  the 
Corporation  have  any  more  right  or  authority  to  alter  it,  or  repeal 
it,  or  to  accept  of  any  adscititious  creeds  as  containing  the  substance 
of  it,  than  any  other  corporate  body  has  to  alter  the  conditions  of 
their  charter  ?"  We  presume  Mr.  Dow  had  a  right  to  ask  this 
question.  We  have  never  heard  whether  he  has  been  favoured 
with  an  answer.  It  would  seem,  however,  that  the  Dwight  Pro- 
fessor of  Theology  must  be  greatly  straitened  in  order  to  avail 
himself  of  the  liberal  usage  above  referred  to.  It  seems  the  found- 
ers of  that  professorship  required  that  "  Every  professor  who 
shall  receive  the  income  or  the  revenue  of  this  fund,  shall  be  exa- 
mined as  to  his  faith,  and  be  required  to  make  a  written  declara- 
tion thereof,  agreeably  to  the  following :  '  I  hereby  declare  my  free 
assent  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Ecclesiastical  Discipline 
agreed  upon  by  the  churches  of  the  state  in  the  year  1708.'  " 
They  further  say :  "  If  at  any  future  period,  any  person  who  fills 
the  chair  of  this  professorship,  holds  or  teaches  doctrines  contrary 
to  those  above  referred  to,  then  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Corpo- 
ration to  dismiss  such  person  from  office  forthwith."  We  are  no 
further  interested  in  this  matter  than  the  New  Haven  gentlemen 
are  in  the  affairs  of  the  Presbyterian  church  ;  or  than  the  whole 
Christian  community  is  interested  in  the  maintenance  of  good  faith 
and  true  religion.     We  proceed  with  our  extracts. 

"  The  body  of  the  ministers  in  the  Colony  of  Connecticut,  in 
their  public  conventions,  have  several  times  renewed  their  consent 
to  their  Confession  of  Faith  ;  particularly  at  the  general  council 
at  Guilford,  in  1742,  and  at  the  general  association  at  Fairfield, 
1753,  in  these  words  : 

"  *  We  recommend  it  to  the  particular  associations,  that  they  be 
very  careful,  that  the  true  and  great  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  agree- 
able to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  be  maintained  and  preached  up, 
against  the  Arminian,  Antinomian  and  other  errors,  and  that  espe- 
cial care  and  pains  be  taken  with  our  youth  to  instruct  them  in  the 
principles  of  our  holy  religion  and  articles  of  our  faith.* 

"  At  a  general  association  of  the  Colony  of  Connecticut  at  Mid- 
dletown,  June  17,  1755,  present,  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Jared  Eliot, 
Moderator ;  Benjamin  Colton,  John  Graham,  William  Worthing- 


DOCTRINES    OF    NEW    ENGLAND    CHURCHES.  217 

ton,  Solomon  Williams,  Jacob  Elliot,  Noah  Hobart,  Elnathan 
Whitman,  Nathaniel  Eells,  Jonathan  Todd,  Edward  Eells,  Joseph 
Bellamy,  Noah  Wells,  James  Beebe,  Izrahiah  Wetmore. 

"  '  This  association  apprehending  that  various  errors  contrary 
to  the  doctrines  owned  in  the  churches  of  this  Colony,  are  spread- 
ing and  prevailing  in  the  land,  and  that  it  is  highly  necessary  for 
ministers  to  bear  testimony  against  those  prevailing  errors  ;  this 
association  earnestly  recommend  it  to  the  particular  associations 
of  this  colony  to  agree  among  themselves,  frequently  to  insist 
upon  these  doctrines  contained  in  our  Confession  of  Faith,  which 
are  contrary  to  the  prevailing  errors  of  the  day ;  and  particu- 
larly that  they  would  bear  a  sufficient  testimony  against  Socinian- 
ism,  Arminianism,  Arianism,  Pelagianism,  and  Antinomianism,  or 
any  other  errors  that  may  arise  among  us. 

"  *  And  whereas  one  particular  association  of  this  colony  have 
declined  coming  into  the  proposal  of  a  general  consociation  till 
the  several  associations  have  declared  their  adherence  to  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  owned  in  our  churches  ;  we  freely  declare  our 
adherence  to  the  doctrines  contained  in  our  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  we  would  recommend  it  to  particular  associations  strictly  to 
adhere  to  the  doctrines  of  our  Confession  of  Faith.' 

"  It  was  the  practice  of  the  once  famous  French  Protestant 
churches  at  every  meeting  of  their  national  Synod,  to  read  and 
give  their  assent  to  their  Confession  of  Faith  ;  and  promise  to 
preach  according  to  it.*  And  it  might  be  well  if  this  was  prac- 
tised among  us,  notwithstanding  the  opposition  made  by  those 
who  dislike  the  doctrines. 

"  Although  the  Protestant  churches  in  general,  and  those  of  New 
England  in  particular,  have  been  thus  fully  fixed  and  established  in 
the  pure  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  yet  sundry  persons  of  late  have 
risen  up  openly  to  oppose  and  deny  them ;  and  have  by  various 
means  endeavoured  to  introduce  a  new  scheme  of  Religion,  and 
an  easy  way  of  salvation,  unknown  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  To 
this  purpose  a  great  variety  of  books  have  been  written,  either 
expressly  denying,  or  artfully  endeavouring  to  misrepresent,  per- 
plex, and  undermine  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  Although 
those  authors  do  not  perfectly  agree  among  themselves,  yet  their 
scheme  is,  in  the  main,  tolerably  consistent  with  itself,  inasmuch 
as  the  denying  of  some  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  (amongst; 
which  there  is  a  necessary  connexion)  naturally  undermines  and 
destroys  all  the  rest. 

"  I  shall  present  the  reader  with  a  general  view  of  this  new 
scheme  of  religion,  as  I  some  years  ago  collected  it  from  the 
writings  of  Chubb,  Taylor,  Foster,  Hutcheson,  Campbell  and 
Ramsey,  and  other  books,  which  are  by  some  highly  extolled  and 
assiduously  spread  about  the  country. 

"  *  The  only  end  and  design  of  the  creation  is  the  happiness  of 
the  creature ;  and  this  end  shall  certainly  be  attained,  so  that  all 

*  See  "  Quick's  Synodicon." 


218  DOCTRINES    OF   NEW   ENGLAND    CHURCHES. 

rational  creatures  shall  finally  be  happy  ;  or  at  least  taken  together 
as  a  body,  shall  be  as  happy  as  they  can  possibly  be  ;  and  if  some 
individual  should  be  eternally  miserable,  it  is  because  it  is  beyond 
the  power  of  God  to  make  them  happy  ;  it  being  impossible  that 
a  creature  should  be  happy  against  its  will,  and  the  will  cannot  be 
immediately  changed  without  destroying  the  nature  of  the  agent. 
God  has  no  authority  over  his  creatures  as  creator,  but  only  as 
benefactor,  and  has  no  right  to  command  his  creatures,  but  only  so 
far  as  he  annexes  rewards  to  obedience,  and  makes  it  their  interest 
to  obey :  the  only  criterion  of  duty  to  God  is  self-interest ;  and 
God  commands  us  to  do  things,  not  out  of  any  regard  to  his  own 
glory  or  authority,  but  merely  because  the  things  commanded 
naturally  tend  to  promote  our  own  interests  and  happiness.  That 
he  annexes  penalties  only  for  the  good  of  the  creature,  and  the 
only  end  of  punishment  is  the  good  of  those  upon  whom  it  is 
inflicted  ;  or,  at  least,  for  the  good  of  the  system  of  moral  agents 
in  general. 

"  The  natural  tendency  which  things  have  to  promote  our  own 
interest,  is  the  sole  criterion  of  moral  good  and  evil,  truth  and  false- 
hood, right  and  wrong,  duty  and  sin.  That  sin  consists  in  nothing 
but  a  man's  doing  or  forbearing  an  action  contrary  to  his  own 
interest ;  and  duty  to  God  is  nothing  but  the  pursuit  of  our  own 
happiness,  with  this  view,  that  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  we  should 
be  happy. 

"  We  ought  to  have  no  regard  to  God,  but  so  far  as  he  is  or  may 
be  a  means  or  instrument  of  promoting  our  own  happiness,  and 
that  to  act  from  a  view  to  the  glory  of  God,  his  perfection, 
authority  or  laws  considered  as  over  and  above,  beside  or  distinct 
from  our  own  happiness,  is  but  a  chimera  ;  it  being  impossible  that 
any  moral  agent  can  have  any  rational  view  or  design,  but  only  its 
own  happiness. 

"  Since  the  nature  of  all  sin  consists  in  man's  doing  what  he 
knows  to  be  contrary  to  his  own  interest  and  happiness :  every  sin 
must  be  known  and  voluntary  ;  and  consequently  there  can  be  no 
sin  of  ignorance,  derivation  or  imputation  ;  nor  any  sinful  nature, 
state  or  disposition.  That  Adam  was  not  created  in  a  state  of 
holiness,  but  only  had  a  power  to  act  virtuously,  that  is,  to  pursue 
his  own  interest  if  he  pleased  :  that  he  had  in  his  original  consti- 
tution strong  dispositions  and  inclinations  to  do  acts  that  were 
sinful,  i.  e.  contrary  to  his  own  interest,  and  he  could  not  refrain 
from  those  particular  acts  without  considerable  pain  and  uneasi- 
ness :  that  God  gave  him  inclinations  which  he  ought  not  to 
gratify,  and  that  an  inclination!  to  sin,  being  the  gift  of  God,  is 
no  sin,  but  is  designed  for  the  exercise  of  his  virtue  in  restraining 
of  it.* 

"  Every  man  is  now  born  into  the  world  in  as  perfect  a  state  of 

*  The  author  of  "  Heaven  Open  to  all  Men"  says,  if  our  appetites  are  irregular* 
he  who  gave  them  is  responsible  for  them. 


4 


DOCTRINES   O^  NEW  ENGLAND   CHURCHES.  219 

rectitude  as  Adam  was  created  ;  and  has  no  more  of  a  disposition 
to  sin  than  he  had  ;  and  in  all  respects  stands  as  fair  for  the  favour 
of  God  as  Adam  did  ;  not  being  obliged  to  be  conformed  to  any 
standard  of  moral  perfection,  but  only  to  pursue  his  own  interest 
and  happiness. 

"  And  though  it  should  be  supposed,  that  men  have  some  weak> 
nesses  now,  which  Adam  had  not  at  first,  yet  nothing  can  be  a  man's 
duty  which  is  not  now  in  his  power,  even  though  he  has  lost  it  by 
his  own  fault  ;  for  the  law  is  abated  in  proportion  with  the  power 
to  obey. 

"  Adam,  in  a  state  of  innocence,  being  liable  to  sickness,  wounds 
and  death,  there  is  reason  to  suppose  that  the  special  providence 
of  God  would  interpose  to  preserve  him  from  them.  The  present 
miseries  and  calamities  of  human  life  are  no  evidences  of  a  sinful 
state  or  tokens  of  God's  displeasure  ;  but  are  primarily  designed 
as  means  for  the  trial  of  men's  virtue,  and  to  make  them  capable  of 
a  reward. 

"  Every  man  has  a  natural  power  to  prosecute  his  own  interest, 
and  to  do  all  that  is  necessary  to  be  done  by  him  for  his  own  hap- 
piness. The  actions  of  moral  agents  can  be  neither  virtuous, 
vicious  nor  free,  unless  they  are  done  by  a  man's  own  power,  nor 
unless  he  has  also  a  power  to  do  the  contrary  ;  and  therefore  it  is 
absurd  to  suppose  that  God  should  implant  grace  or  holiness  in 
any  man,  or  keep  him  from  sin,  or  decree  or  foreknow  his  actions  ; 
because  all  these  suppositions  destroy  the  free  agency  of  a  man, 
and  consequently  his  moral  virtue. 

"  That  God  cannot  certainly  foreknow  the  actions  of  free  agents, 
because  they  are  not  in  their  own  nature  foreknowable ;  they  not 
depending  upon  any  antecedent  causes,  but  merely  upon  the  free 
and  self-determining  power  of  the  will. 

"  Since  sin  is  nothing  else  but  a  man's  not  pursuing  his  own  interest 
so  well  as  he  might,  no  punishment  is  properly  and  justly  due  to 
him  ;  but  only  that  he  should  suffer  the  natural  ill  consequences  of 
his  own  misconduct ;  consequently  no  satisfaction  is  necessary  in 
order  to  the  forgiveness  of  sin ;  and  therefore  Christ  did  not  die 
to  make  satisfaction  for  sin,  and  so  there  is  no  need  to  suppose 
him  to  be  essentially  God,  but  only  a  most  perfect  and  glorious 
creature. 

"  The  great  design  of  the  gospel,  and  of  Christ's  coming  into  the 
world,  was  to  revive  the  light  of  nature,  and  to  cultivate  moral 
virtue,  which  had  been  greatly  obscured  by  Jewish  and  heathenish 
superstitions,  and  to  give  men  more  full  assurance,  that  if  they 
endeavoured  to  promote  their  own  interest  in  this  world,  they 
should  be  happy  in  the  next,  than  the  mere  light  of  nature  could  do  : 
and  therefore  there  is  no  great  weight  to  be  laid  upon  men's  believ- 
ing Christ's  divinity,  satisfaction,  or  any  of  those  speculative  points 
which  have  been  generally  received  as  the  peculiar  and  fundamen- 
tal doctrines  of  the  gospel  (some  of  which  are  prejudicial  to  moral 
virtue),  but  we  ought  to  have  charity  for  all  men,  let  their  specula- 


220  DOCTRINES   OF  NEW  ENGLANl)  CHURCHES. 

tive  principles  be  what  they  will,  provided  they  live  moral  lives, 
whether  they  be  Papists,  Jews,  Mahomedans  or  heathens  :  or,  at 
least,  for  all  that  say  they  believe  the  Bible,  though*  they  put  no 
certain  meaning  to  it,  or  construction  upon  it ;  but  only  that  they 
believe  it  to  be  a  good  system  of  morality,  and  don't  profess  to 
believe  anything  more  about  Christ,  than  the  Mahomedans  gene- 
rally do. 

"  And  some  have  charity  for  all  who  are  willing  to  be  happy, 
and  have  a  benevolent  temper  towards  their  felTowmen,  though 
they  do  not  so  much  as  believe  the  being  of  a  God ;  yea,  some 
extend  their  charity  to  the  devils  themselves,  so  far  as  to  suppose, 
that  though  they  are  at  present  very  much  out  of  the  way,  yet 
they  shall  at  length  see  their  error,  and  all  be  finally  happy  in 
heaven  ;  and  pretend  to  produce  plain  demonstration  for  it  in  this 
form: 

**  *  The  ultimate  end  and  design  of  God  in  the  creation,  is  the 
happiness  of  the  creature. 

"  *  God's  ultimate  end  and  design  never  can  be  finally  frustrated 
or  defeated ;  therefore  all  intelligent  creatures  shall  finally  be 
happy.'" 

Here  let  the  reader  pause.  Let  him  review  this  new  scheme  of 
religion,  and  ascertain  its  leading  features.  He  will  find  that  what 
we  call  new  now,  was  called  new  a  hundred  years  ago,  and  for  the 
same  reason.  The  doctrines  were  no  more  new  then  than  they 
are  at  present ;  but  it  was  a  new  thing  that  those  doctrines  should 
be  avowed  in  the  midst  of  orthodox  churches.  The  reader  cannot 
fail  to  notice,  that  every  doctrine  characteristic  of  the  system  which 
is  now  agitating  the  country,  is  embraced  in  the  scheme  which 
pious  and  orthodox  men  of  New  England  were  called  to  oppose 
during  the  last  century.  These  doctrines  are,  1.  That  the  promo- 
tion of  happiness  is  the  grand  end  of  creation.  2.  That  self-inte- 
rest is  the  ultimate  foundation  of  moral  obligation.  3.  That  God 
cannot  control  the  acts  of  moral  agents,  or  prevent  sin  in  a  moral 
system.  4.  That  he  cannot,  of  course,  decree  the,,  acts  of  free 
agents.  5.  That  all  sin  consists  in  the  voluntary  transgression  of 
known  law ;  consequently  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  holy  or 
unholy  nature.  Adam  was  not  created  holy,  but  formed  his  own 
moral  character;  and  his  posterity  are  not  born  corrupt,  but  become 
corrupt  by  their  own  voluntary  transgression  of  known  law.  6. 
That  plenary  ability  and  full  power  to  the  contrary  are  necessary 
to  the  morality  of  any  act. 

There  are  some  points  embraced  in  the  new  scheme  as  given  by 
President  Clap,  which  do  not  belong  to  the  new  divinity  of  our 
day  :  as,  for  example,  the  speculations  about  the  divinity  of  Christ ; 
and  there  are  some  which  belong  to  the  new  divinity,  as,  for  exam- 
ple, making  regeneration  to  consist  in  the  choice  of  God,  as  a 
source  of  happiness,  or  in  a  change  of  purpose,  which  are  not 

•  «  These  call  themselves  Bibliarians." 


DOCTRINES   OF  NEW  ENGLAND   CHURCHES.  221 

expressly  stated,  though  they  are  implied  in  the  new  scheme  of 
the  last  century.  It  would  be  easy  and  perhaps  useful  to  point 
out  the  striking  coincidence,  even  in  language,  between  these  two 
schemes,  did  our  limits  permit.*  We  must  content  ourselves  here 
with  a  very  few  illustrations.  With  regard  to  the  first  point  Pre- 
sident Clap  remarks :  "  This  fundamental  principle,  *  That  the  hap- 
piness of  the  creature  is  the  sole  end  of  creation,'  naturally  leads 
to  most  if  not  all  the  rest."  We  are  afraid  this  is  too  true,  though 
many  who  adopt  this  principle,  or  at  least  the  theory  of  virtue  of 
which  it  is  the  expression,  repudiate  many  or  all  of  these  conse- 
quences. It  is  a  strange  perversion  to  make  happiness  the  end, 
and  holiness  but  a  means  ;  as  though  enjoyment  were  superior  to 
excellence.  The  theory  that  virtue  is  founded  in  utility ;  that  a 
thing  is  right  simply  because  of  its  tendency  to  promote  happi- 
ness ;  this  tendency  being  not  merely  the  evidence  of  its  excel- 
lence, but  that  excellence  itself,  is  the  copious  fountain  of  specula- 
tive errors,  and  of  perversion  of  the  moral  feelings.  If  happiness 
is  the  great  end  of  creation ;  if  anything  is  right  that  promotes 
happiness,  then  the  end  sanctifies  the  means,  and  it  is  right  to  do 
evil  that  good  may  come.  If  it  is  right  for  God  to  act  on  this 
principle,  it  is  hard  to  make  men  feel  that  it  is  wicked  for  them  to 
do  so.  The  only  difliculty  is,  that  they  may  not  have  knowledge 
enough  to  enable  them  to  apply  the  principle  correctly,  but  the 
principle  itself  must  be  good.  We  think  it  might  easily  be  made 
to  appear  that  the  theology  and  morals  of  the  church  have  suflfered 
severely  from  the  adoption  of  this  false  theory  of  virtue. 

That  this  theory  is  a  constituent  part  of  the  new  divinity  is  plain 
from  almost  every  page  of  the  writings  of  the  advocates  of  that 
system.  "  Why  is  righteousness  or  justice,"  asks  the  Christian 
Spectator,  **  better  than  injustice  ?"  After  rejecting  other  answers, 
he  says,  "  We  must  come  back  to  the  tendency  to  good  or  evil, 
pleasure  or  pain,  happiness  or  unhappiness.  The  same  relation  is 
implied  in  saying  that  righteousness  or  justice  is  better  or  prefer- 
able to  injustice  or  oppression.  How  better?  In  what  respect 
preferable  ?  What  fitness  or  adaptedness  has  it,  unless  to  good  ? 
and  what  is  good,  except  as  it  tends  to  promote  happiness  ?"f 
According  to  this  doctrine  there  is  no  such  thing  as  morality. 
Pleasure  is  the  only  good,  and  pam  the  only  evil.  There  are 
means  of  pleasure,  and  causes  of  pain ;  but  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  sin  or  holiness.  There  is  no  specific  diflference  between  beauty 
and  moral  excellence ;  between  a  crime  and  a  burn.  There  is, 
however,  no  more  sense  in  asking,  as  is  done  by  the  Spectator, 
"  How  righteousness  is  better  than  injustice  ?"  than  in  asking,  how 
pleasure  is  better  than  pain.      Every  sentient  being  knows  that 

*  This  is  the  less  necessary,  however,  as  our  readers  have  access  to  the  admirable 
letters  on  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  New  Haven  Theology,  from  a  New  England 
minister  to  one  at  the  South ;  to  Mr.  Dow's  pamphlet  on  the  New  Divinity,  and  to 
Mr,  James  Wood's  work,  entitled  Old  and  New  Theology. 

t  Christian  Spectator,  vol.  x.,  p.  538. 


222  DOCTRINES  OF  NEW  ENGLAND  CHURCHES. 

pleasure  is  better  than  pain ;  and  every  moral  being  knows  that 
righteousness  is  better  than  injustice.  No  reason  need  be  given  in 
either  case.  Right  is  as  much  a  primary  idea  as  pleasure.  If  a 
man  had  never  felt  pleasure  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to 
understand  it ;  and  if  a  man  has  no  moral  sense  he  can  have  no 
conception  of  the  meaning  of  the  terms  right  and  wrong.  To  tell 
him  that  right  is  the  quality  of  any  act  which  tends  to  produce 
happiness,  and  wrong  of  one  which  tends  to  produce  pain,  would 
make  him  think  these  words  synonymous  with  expedient  and  inex- 
pedient, agreeable  and  disagreeable.  It  would  convey  no  idea  of 
the  specific  meaning  of  the  terms.  Happiness  is  the  mere  shadow 
of  virtue.  It  must  always  follow  it.  But  virtue  is  no  more  defined 
by  saying  that  it  is  that  which  tends  to  produce  happiness,  than  the 
nature  of  a  solid  body  is  defined  by  saying  it  is  that  which  casts  a 
shadow. 

People  are  very  apt  to  imagine  that  they  gain  a  victory  when 
they  ask  a  question  which  does  not  admit  of  an  answer.  This  is  a 
great  mistake.  We  are  no  more  concerned  because  we  cannot 
tell  an  inquirer  what  there  is  in  virtue  besides  its  tendency  to  pro- 
duce happiness,  than  we  are  because  we  cannot  tell  a  deaf  man 
the  difference  between  a  loud  sound  and  a  bright  colour.  The  dif- 
ficulty does  not  arise  from  the  identity  of  the  two  things,  but  from 
a  want  of  capacity  in  the  questioner  to  perceive  the  difference. 
Such  interrogations,  therefore,  as  those  of  the  Spectator,  produce 
in  us  no  other  feeling  than  that  of  wonder  how  they  can  be  put  by 
any  man  with  a  moral  sense. 

But  the  plague-spot  of  the  new  divinity  is  the  second  point  above 
specified,  the  principle  that  self-interest  is  the  ultimate  foundation 
of  moral  obligation.  This  is  its  point  of  alliance  with  the  lowest 
form  of  speculative  opinions  on  this  subject,  and  which  gives  it  a 
character  which  must  degrade  the  moral  and  religious  feelings  of 
every  human  breast  in  which  it  gains  a  lodgment.  This  offensive 
doctrine  is  not  only  incidentally  stated,  or  indirectly  implied,  it  is 
formally  propounded  and  vindicated  in  writings  of  recognised 
authority  in  reference  to  the  new  divinity.  Thus  we  are  told, 
"  This  self-love  or  desire  of  happiness  is  the  primary  cause  or  rea- 
son of  all  acts  of  preference  or  choice,  which  fix  supremely  on  any 
object."  And  more  plainly  still,  "  Of  all  specific,  voluntary  action 
the  happiness  of  the  agent  in  some  form  is  the  ultimate  end."*  Can 
there  be  a  human  heart  which  does  not  revolt  at  such  a  monstrous 
assertion  ?  Has  every  act  of  piety,  every  deed  of  benevolence, 
every  attention  of  maternal  love,  the  happmess  of  the  agent  as  its 
ultimate  end  ?  The  assertion  contradicts  the  consciousness  of 
every  human  being.  All  religion,  all  benevolence,  all  the  social 
aflfections  do  not  centre  in  self.  Any  man  whose  own  happiness  is 
the  ultimate  end  of  all  his  specific  voluntary  actions  is  a  bad  man. 
If  such  a  being  could  be  found,  he  would  not  deserve  the  name  of 

•  Christian  Spectator,  1S29,  p.  21-24. 


DOCTRINES  OF  NEW  ENGLAND   CHURCHES.  223 

a  man.  Every  one  performs  a  multitude  of  acts  because  they  are 
right ;  and  in  which  the  happiness  of  others  and  not  of  himself  is 
the  ultimate  end.  It  may  be  said,  we  do  not  analyse  our  feelings 
with  sufficient  accuracy.  We  have,  however,  no  faith  in  this  ana- 
lysing one  thing  into  another ;  a  sense  of  right  into  a  desire  of  hap- 
piness ;  self-denial  into  self-seeking  ;  the  love  of  God  into  the  love 
of  self.     We  pray  to  be  deHvered  from  all  such  metaphysics. 

Lest  our  readers  should  think  that  we  assume  on  too  slight 
grounds  that  this  doctrine  is  a  part  of  the  new  scheme  of  religion 
of  our  days,  we  refer  them  to  an  article  on  moral  obligation  in  the 
last  number  of  the  Christian  Spectator.  They  will  tind  it  there 
taught  that  "  the  ultimate  foundation  of  moral  obligation  is  the  ten- 
dency of  an  action  to  promote  the  highest  happiness  of  an  agent, 
by  promoting  the  highest  welfare  of  all,"  p.  531.  The  last  clause 
of  the  sentence  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  doctrine.  The  ground 
of  obligation  is  the  tendency  of  the  act  to  promote  the  happiness 
of  the  agent.  The  fact  that  his  happiness  is  best  secured  by  acts 
which  tend  to  promote  the  highest  welfare  of  all,  is  not,  according 
to  the  theory,  the  reason  of  their  being  obligatory.  And  this  the 
article  teaches  with  abundant  plainness.  The  nature  of  the  doc- 
trine taught  is  clear  from  the  whole  drift  of  the  piece ;  and  will  be 
sufficiently  indicated  to  the  reader  by  such  sentences  as  the  follow- 
ing :  "  It  will  perhaps  be  said,  that  by  making  moral  obligation  to 
rest  on  the  tendency  to  promote  the  highest  happiness  of  the  agent, 
we  make  it  wholly  a  selfish  thing,"  p.  541.  *'  Perhaps  it  may  here 
be  said,  if  this  is  the  evil  of  sin — the  disregard  of  the  agent's  highest 
welfare — and  if  this  oftentimes  results  from  a  state  of  ignorance,  then 
the  only  remedy  necessary  is  to  supply  the  requisite  knowledge — 
to  enlighten  the  mind,"  p.  550.  It  is  taught  no  less  explicitly  that 
the  primary  reason  why  we  are  bound  to  obey  God  is,  that  he 
knows  best  what  will  make  us  happy.  Nay,  we  are  told  that  it 
has  been  said,  by  at  least  one  advocate  of  the  new  divinity,  that  if 
the  devil  could  make  him  happier  than  God  can,  he  would  serve 
the  devil.*  It  is  hard  to  conceive  how  he  could  serve  the  devil 
more  effectually  than  by  making  such  declarations,  which,  after  all, 
are  only  an  irreverent  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
Spectator.  On  p.  529  the  question  is  started.  Why  ought  we  to 
obey  the  will  of  God  ?  After  a  good  deal  of  circumlocution  it 
comes  out  that  this  obligation  rests  on  his  wisdom  and  benevolence, 
that  is,  upon  his  knowing  what  will  render  us  most  happy,  and  upon 
the  assurance  which  his  benevolence  affords,  that  he  will  not 
deceive  us  as  to  this  point.  "  The  rule,"  we  are  told,  exists,  "  and 
what  its  foundation  is  we  have  seen.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  exists, 
however  it  may  be  made  known,  and  the  tendency,  or  bearing,  or 
relation  to  happiness,  whence  it  arises,  would  exist  even  if  the  rule 
or  law  was  unknown.  It  is  the  province  of  the  moral  governor  to 
make  this  truth  known  and  to  sustain  it.     The  fact  that  he  is  such 

•  We  would  not  state  this  on  slight  grounds.  We  have  received  it  from  a  source 
on  which  entire  reliance  may  be  placed. 


224  DOCTRINES  OF  NEW   ENGLAND  CHURCHES. 

a  being,  that  he  is  competent  to  the  task,  forms  a  reason,  why  he 
should  be  obeyed.  In  this  competency,  his  capacity  to  judge 
what  is  best,  what  is  most  productive  of  good  or  of  happiness, 
and  his  disposition  to  do  it,  in  other  words  his  infinite  wisdom 
and  benevolence,  is  the  prime  element  to  be  taken  into  the 
account,"  p.  537.  On  a  previous  page  it  was  said,  that  if  there 
was  "  no  feeling  of  gratification  in  the  act  (of  obedience  to  God)  . . . 
the  force  of  obligation  would  be  unfelt."  And  on  538,  it  is  asked, 
"  On  what  ground  is  obedience  claimed  ?  Jt  is  that  the  law  is 
holy,  just  and  good.  The  very  reason  that  God  assigns  is,  that  it 
is  good — that  it  is  the  surest  way  of  making  us  most  happy.  [The 
words  holy  and  just,  it  seems,  have  no  meaning  for  this  writer.] 
His  declaration  in  the  form  of  law,  is  the  highest  evidence  which 
we  have  of  the  fact,  for  it  is  the  testimony  of  one  who  sees  in  all 
things  the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  v^ho  has  no  disposition  to 
mislead  us,  but  who,  with  all  the  sincerity  of  infinite  love,  seeks  to 

promote  our  highest  happiness Men  do   not   distinguish 

between  God's  competency  to  discern  and  to  make  known  to  us  the 
way  of  happiness,  and  his  creating  a  particular  line  of  conduct 
right  or  wrong."  Again,  "  Does  any  one  hold  that  the  will  of 
God  is  the  foundation  of  moral  obligation,  we  show  that  this,  when 
carefully  examined,  can  mean  nothing  more  than  the  objective 
ground,  or  the  indication  or  proof  to  us,  wherein  our  true  welfare 
lies,  so  as  to  supply  to  us  our  defect  of  knowledge,"  p.  543. 
According  to  this  doctrine  there  is  in  fact  no  such  thing  as  moral 
obligation  in  the  universe.  A  man  is  bound  to  promote  his  own 
happiness  in  the  best  way  he  can,  and  this  is  his  whole  duty.  All 
his  obligation  is  to  himself.  He  owes  nothing  to  God,  or  to  his 
fellow  men.  It  is  expedient  for  him  to  observe  the  divine  direc- 
tions, but  he  is  bound  to  do  so  only  so  far  as  they  promote  his  own 
welfare.  We  would  fain  hope  that  such  a  doctrine  needs  no  refu- 
tation in  a  Christian  country.  Its  naked  statement  is  enough  to 
secure  its  reprobation. 

The  third  specification  given  above  is,  that  God  cannot  control 
the  acts  of  free  agents,  or  that  he  could  not  prevent  the  introduc- 
tion of  sin  into  a  moral  system.  "  It  is  a  groundless  assumption," 
says  Dr.  Taylor,  "  that  God  could  have  prevented  all  sin,  or  at 
least  the  present  degree  of  sin  in  a  moral  system  ....  Would  not 
a  benevolent  God,  had  it  been  possible  to  him  in  the  nature  of 
things,  have  secured  the  existence  of  universal  holiness  in  his  moral 
kingdom  ?"*  "  Free  moral  agents,"  says  the  Christian  Spectator, 
"  can  do  wrong  under  every  possible  influence  to  prevent  it."t 
"  God  not  only  prefers  on  the  whole,  that  his  creatures  should 
for  ever  perform  their  duties  rather  than  neglect  them,  but  proposes 
on  his  part  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  promote  this  very  object."J 
God,  it  is  said,  determined  on  his  present  course  of  providence, 
"  not  for  the  sake  of  redemption  in  the  universe,  rather  than  have 

*  Concio.,  p.  28.  f  Vol.  1830,  p.  563.  %  Ch.  Spect.  1832,  p.  660. 


DOCTRINES   OF  NEW   ENGLAND   CHURCHES.  225 

a  universe  without  sin;  but  for  introducing  redemption  into  a 
universe  from  which  sin  could  not,  by  any  providence,  be  exclud- 
ed."* "  The  nature  of  things,  as  they  now  exist,  forbids,  as  far 
as  God  himself  is  concerned,  the  more  frequent  existence  of  holi- 
ness in  the  place  of  sin/'f  "  The  prevention  of  sin  did  not  enter 
into  his  determination  because  he  saw  it  to  be  impracticable,"  p.  15. 
"  It  is  to  him  a  subject  of  regret  and  grief,  yet  men  transgress  ; 
they  rebel  in  spite  of  his  wishes  ;  they  persevere  in  sin  in  spite  of 
all  which  he  can  do  to  reclaim  them,"  p.  19. 

Fourth,  that  the  assumption  that  God  cannot  effectually  control 
the  acts  of  moral  agents,  is  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of 
decrees,  is  too  evident  to  need  remark.  The  doctrine  is  therefore 
rejected,  though  the  terms,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  or  for  some 
other  reason,  are  retained.  That  God  decrees  that  an  event  should 
occur,  and  yet  "  proposes  to  do  all  in  his  power"  to  prevent  its 
occurrence,  no  one  can  believe.  He  may  permit  its  occurrence,  or 
submit  to  it  rather  than  destroy  the  system,  but  to  say  that  he 
decrees  it,  appears  to  be  a  contradiction.  The  statement  of  the 
doctrines  of  predestination  and  election  given  by  the  New  Haven 
writers  and  others  of  the  same  school,  is  in  accordance  with  this 
fundamental  principle  of  their  system,  and  is  a  virtual  denial  of 
those  doctrines.  **  Whatever  degree  or  kind  of  influence,"  says 
the  Spectator,  "  is  used  with  them  (sinners)  to  favour  their  return 
lo  him  at  any  given  time,  is  as  strongly  favourable  to  their  con- 
version as  it  can  be  made  amid  the  obstacles  which  a  world  of 
guilty  and  rebellious  moral  agents  opposed  to  God's  works  of 
grace."{  In  another  place  the  writer,  speaking  of  the  influence 
which  operates  on  the  sinner,  says,  "  Election  involves  nothing 
more,  as  it  respects  his  individual  case,  except  one  fact — the  cer- 
tainty to  the  divine  mind,  whether  the  sinner  will  yield  to  the  means 
of  grace,  and  voluntarily  turn  lo  God,  or  whether  he  will  continue 
to  harden  his  heart  until  the  means  of  grace  are  withdrawn." 
That  is,  God  exerts  an  influence  on  sinners  as  strongly  favourable 
to  their  conversion  "  as  it  can  be  made,"  and  he  knows  who  will 
yield,  and  this  is  election  !  To  the  same  effect  Mr.  Tyler  teaches, 
"  God  foresees  whom  he  can  make  willing  in  the  day  of  his  power, 
and  resolves  that  they  shall  be  saved,"  p.  14.  And  Mr.  Finney, 
"  The  elect  were  chosen  to  eternal  life,  because  God  foresaw  that 
in  the  perfect  exercise  of  their  freedom  they  could  be  induced  to 
repent  and  embrace  the  gospel."§  It  is  really  surprising  that  the 
New  Haven  divines  should  still  assert  that  they  hold  the  doctrines 
of  predestination  and  election  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  terms. 
President  Fiske,  in  answer  to  the  review  of  his  sermon  in  the 
Christian  Spectator,  justly  complains  of  this  unfairness.  "  I  can- 
not," he  says,  "  but  express  my  deepest  regret  that  a  gentleman  of 

•  Ch.  Spect.,  p.  635. 

t  Sermon  by  Edward  R.  Tyler,  New  Haven,  1829,  p.  9. 
X  See  Review  of  Dr.  Fiske's  Sermon  on  Predestination  and  Election. 
§  Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  p.  25. 
15 


226  DOCTRINES   OF  NEW   ENGLAND    CHURCHES. 

the  reviewer's  standing  and  learning  should  lend  his  aid  and  give 
his  sanction  to  such  a  perversion  of  language,  to  such  a  confusion 
of  tongues.  Do  the  words  predestinate,  foreordain,  decree,  mean 
in  their  radical  and  critical  definition,  nothing  nnore  than  to  per- 
mit, not  absolutely  to  hinder,  to  submit  to  as  an  unavoidable  and 
offensive  evil  ?  .  .  .  .  Why  then  should  the  reviewer,  believing  as 
he  does,  continue  to  use  them  in  the  symbols  of  his  foith?  .  .  His 
mode  of  explanation  turns  the  doctrine  into  Arminianism." 

Fifth,  that  all  sin  consists  in  the  voluntary  transgression  of 
known  law.  This  is  so  much  a  favourite  topic  with  the  writers  of 
this  chiss,  that  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  bring  examples.  As  they 
explain  and  apply  the  principle,  it  involves  the  denial  both  of  origi- 
nal righteousness  and  original  sin.  "  Neither  a  holy  nor  a  depraved 
nature  is  possible,"  says  Dr.  Beecher,  "  without  understanding, 
conscience  and  choice.  To  say  of  an  accountable  creature  that 
he  is  depraved  by  nature,  is  only  to  say,  that,  rendered  capable  by 
his  Maker  of  obedience,  he  disobeys  from  the  commencement  of 
his  accountability."*  "  It  is  obvious,"  says  Mr.  Duffield,  "  that  in 
infancy  and  incipient  childhood,  when  none  of  the  actions  are  deli- 
berate, or  the  result  of  motive,  operating  in  connexion  with  the 
knowledge  of  law,  and  of  the  great  end  of  liuman  actions,  no 
moral  character  can  appropriately  be  predicated."!  "  Why  then 
is  it  necessary,"  asks  the  Christian  Spectator,  "  to  suppose  some 
distinct  evil  propensity,  some  fountain  of  iniquity  in  the  breast  of 
the  child  previous  to  moral  action  ?"J  "  Animals  and  infants,  pre- 
vious to  moral  agency,  do  therefore  stand  on  precisely  the  same 
ground  in  reference  to  this  subject."  The  doctrine  of  "  a  native 
propensity  to  evil,"  according  to  Dr.  Taylor,  makes  *\God  the 
responsible  author  of  sin,"  destroys  responsibility,  &c.,  &c.  See 
his  Review  of  Dr.  Tyler  in  the  Christian  Spectator,  1832.  It  is 
useless  to  multiply  quotations. 

Sixth,  that  plenary  ability  and  full  power  to  the  contrary  are 
necessary  to  the  morality  of  any  act.  There  are  three  views  of 
the  doctrine  of  ability.  The  old  one  is,  "  That  man  by  his  fall 
into  a  state  of  sin  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any  spirit- 
ual good  accompanying  salvation  ;  so  as  a  natural  man,  being  alto- 
gether averse  from  that  which  is  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able 
by  his  own  strength  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare  him  there- 
unto." Inasmuch  as  the  inability  here  spoken  of  is  very  different 
from  that  under  which  a  man  lies  to  create  a  world,  and  inasmuch 
as  it  results  from  sin  or  the  moral  state  of  the  agent,  it  may  pro- 
perly be  called  moral.  On  the  other  hand,  as  fallen  man  is  a  free 
moral  agent,  as  the  things  to  be  done  do  not  transcend  his  nature 
as  a  man,  there  is  a  sense  in  which  he  may  be  said  to  have  a  natu- 
ral ability  to  obey  all  the  commands  of  God.  So  long  as  the 
expression  natural  ability  was  used  in  this  sense,  there  was  no  con- 

*  Sermon  on  the  Native  Character  of  Man. 

t  Regeneration,  p.  378.  j  Christian  Spectator,  1829,  p.  367. 


r 


DOCTRINES   OF   NEW   ENGLAND   CHURCHES.  227 

troversy  as  to  the  thing,  but  only  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  terms. 
There  are  two  prominent  objections  to  this  form  of  expression. 
The  one  is  the  perpetual  and  puzzling  contradictions  in  which  it 
involves  the  preachers  of  the  gospel ;  who  tell  sinners  in  the  same 
breath  they  can  and  they  cannot ;  as  well  as  the  incongruity  of 
saying  that  a  man  is  able  to  do  what  it  is  admitted  that,  in  another 
and  equally  true  and  important  sense,  he  is  unable  to  do.  It  is 
always  an  evil  for  the  declarations  of  ministers  to  come  into 
conflict  with  the  consciousness  of  their  hearers.  A  man  may, 
metaphysically  speaking,  be  said  to  have  a  natural  ability  to  love 
one  person  as  well  as  another,  yet  to  tell  him  he  can  love  all  per- 
sons al  ke,  he  feels  to  be  absurd.  The  other  objection  is,  that  this 
form  of  expression  is  unscriptural.  It  is  not  worth  while  for  us  to 
be  mf)re  philosophical  or  accurate  than  the  Bible.  The  word  of 
God  never  tells  the  sinner  he  can  do  all  that  God  requires  of  him, 
though  it  often  presses  on  him  his  obligation.  They  know  but 
little  of  the  human  heart,  who  so  confidently  maintain  that  a  sense 
of  obligation  is  incompatible  with  the  deepest  conviction  of  help- 
lessness and  inability. 

The  second  view  of  this  doctrine  is  the  Arminian.  It  does  not 
diff.r  from  the  preceding  except  in  one  point.  It  admits  that  men 
have  by  the  fall  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  that  which  is  spiritually 
good,  but  it  teaches  that  the  common  influences  of  the  Spirit,  given 
to  all  men  who  hear  the  Gospel,  impart  suflicient  strength  for  the 
performance  of  all  duty. 

The  third  view  is  that  which  may,  with  propriety  and  therefore 
without  offence,  be  called  Pelagian.  It  is  that  which  President 
Edwards  attributes  to  Dr.  Taylor  of  Norwich,  viz.,  that  there  is 
"a  sufficient  power  and  ability  in  all  mankind  to  d  >  all  their  duty, 
and  wholly  avoid  sin;"  or,  that  "God  has  given  powers  equal  to 
the  duties  which  he  expects."  If  this  is  so,  says  Ed  wards,  "redemp- 
tion is  needless,  and  Christ  is  dead  in  vain."*  This  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  New  Divinity.  "  What  notion,"  asks  the  Christian  Specta- 
tor, "can  be  formed  of  a  subject  of  moral  government,  who  is  des- 
titute of  moral  liberty?  or  in  other  words,  who  in  every  instance 
of  obedience  an«l  disobedience  does  not  act  with  inherent  power 
to  the  contrary  choice."t  "  Choice  in  its  very  nature,"  says  Dr. 
Beecher,  "  implies  the  possibility  of  a  different  or  contrary  election 
to  that  which  is  made."  Again,  "  The  question  is  not  whether 
man  chooses,  that  is  notorious,  but  whether  his  choice  is  free  as 
opposed  to  a  fatal  necessity."  (The  reader  will  perceive  that  these 
two  sentences  contradict  each  other.)  "If  a  man  does  not  pos- 
sess the  power  of  choice,  with  power  to  the  contrary,  he  sees  and 
feels  he  is  not  to  blame."J  The  New  Haven  gentlemen  constantly 
represent  what  has  hitherto  been  represented  as  moral  inability  as 
inconsistent  with  free  agency.     Dr.  Tyler  had   stated  that  there 

•  Edwards's  Works,  vol.  ii.,  515.  f  Spectator,  1835,  p.  377. 

X  Views  ia  Theology,  p.  32,  ei  passim. 


DOCTRINES   OF   NEW   ENGLAND   CHURCHES. 

was  in  man  "  a  native  propensity  to  evil."  His  reviewer  replies, 
"  With  such  a  propensity,  man  has  not  a  natural  ability  to  avoid 
sin.  And  this  is  alike  true,  whether  this  propensity  be  supposed 
to  be  sinful  or  innocent."  In  like  manner,  because  Dr.  Tyler 
maintained  that  there  was  a  moral  change  in  the  sinner  anterior  to 
right  moral  action,  he  is  represented  as  teaching  physical  depravity, 
physical  regeneration,  natural  inability,  (fee,  &c.*  "  Talk  not," 
says  the  Spectator,  "of  the  distinction  of  natural  and  moral  ability, 
you  have  done  it  for  ever  away.  If  the  change  in  question  consists 
in  anything  prior  to  voluntary  exercise,  such  a  change  I  can  in  no 
sense  produce."! 

It  is  therefore  abundantly  manifest  that  the  New  Divinity  is,  in 
its  essential  features,  identical  with  the  "  New  Scheme  of  Religion," 
with  which  the  pious  people  of  Connecticut  had  to  contend  a  cen- 
tury ago.  If  it  was  right  for  them  to  oppose  it,  it  is  right  it  should 
be  opposed  now.  It  was  the  friends  of  evangelical  religion  who 
resisted  the  introduction  of  the  New  Scheme  ;  and  it  is  the  friends 
of  religion  who  now  oppose  the  New  Divinity.  The  history  of 
the  church  may  be  challenged  to  produce  a  single  case  in  which 
true  religion,  we  do  not  say  has  flourished,  but  has  survived  under 
the  operation  of  that  system  of  doctrine.  It  has  been  called  Ar- 
minianism.  But  this  is  a  great  mistake.  There  is  fourfold  more 
truth  and  aliment  for  piety  in  Arminianism  than  in  these  new  doc- 
trines :  Far  more  truth  in  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  original  sin, 
of  divine  influence,  of  regeneration,  of  the  atonement,  of  justifica- 
tion. And  what  has  Arminianism  to  do  with  the  doctrine  that  all 
virtue  is  founded  in  utility  ?  (So  too  we  suppose  all  beauty  is 
founded  in  utility,  and  the  only  reason  that  a  cascade  gives  plea- 
sure is  that  it  is  adapted  to  turn  a  grist-mill.)  And  more  especially, 
what  has  Arminianism  to  do  with  the  monstrous  doctrine  that  self- 
love  is  the  ultimate  foundation  of  moral  obligation  ?  The  churches 
ought  not  to  be  deceived  upon  this  subject.  The  New  Divinity  is 
not  Arminianism,  but  something  far,  very  far  worse.  Those  men 
are  to  be  pitied  who  can  see  nothing  but  a  shade  of  difference 
between  this  system  and  the  common  orthodoxy  of  evangelical 
churches ;  and  still  more  are  those  to  be  commiserated  who,  for 
party  purposes,  or  for  any  other  reason,  call  that  a  shade,  which 
they  know  to  be  a  bottomless  gulf  It  remains  yet  to  be  seen 
whether  the  faith  and  spirit  of  the  Puritans  have  still  sufficient 
vigour  in  New  England  eflfectually  to  withstand  the  progress  of 
this  system.  It  has  received,  we  trust,  its  death  blow  in  the  Pres- 
byterian church. 

We  resume  our  extracts  from  President  Clap's  Defence.  "  The 
reading  of  this  new  scheme  of  religion  will  doubtless  differently 
aflfect  the  minds  of  diflferent  readers :  some  will  be  filled  with  indig- 
nation to  see  the  great  and  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel 

♦  Christian  Spectator,  1832,  Review  of  Dr.  Tyler. 

I  Spectator,  1833,  p.  661.  See  a  full  discussion  of  the  theory  of  free  agency  on 
which  all  these  representations  are  founded,  in  a  foregoing  review  of  Dr.  Beecher. 


DOCTRINES   OF   NEW   ENGLAND    CHURCHES.  229 

thus  subverted  and  denied:  others  will  think  it  scarcely  possible,  that 
any  men  of  sense  should  run  into  such  absurd  notions :  others,  who 
have  been  inconsiderately  led  into  some  of  the  principles,  will  start, 
when  they  come  to  see  how  naturally  they  lead  to  some  other  of 
these  principles,  which  at  present  they  abhor.  For  this  fundamental 
principle,*  that  the  happiness  of  the  creature  is  the  sole  end  of  the  cre- 
ation,' naturally  leads  to  most,  if  not  all  of  the  rest:  for  this  must  be 
the  sole  rule  and  measure  of  all  God's  conduct  towards  us,  and  of 
ours  towards  him  ;  and  it  is  certain  that  God's  sole  end  and  ultimate 
design  never  can  be  frustrated.  Others  will  be  grieved  and  pro- 
voked to  see  their  whole  scheme  exposed  to  open  view ;  since 
they  find  it  most  politic  to  conceal  some  parts  of  it,  till  they  can 
get  the  minds  of  men  pretty  well  riveted  into  the  rest. 

**  In  order,  therefore,  to  bring  men  to  an  indifferency,  and  prepare 
them  by  degrees  for  the  reception  of  this  new  scheme,  sundry 
artifices  have  been  used. 

"  That  there  ought  to  be  no  creeds  or  confessions  of  faith  but  the 
Bible :  that  there  are  no  fundamental  principles  in  religion,  or  any 
certain  set  of  doctrines  necessary  to  be  believed,  in  order  to  salva- 
tion :  that  those  which  have  been  commonly  esteemed  such,  are 
but  mere  disputable,  speculative  points,  which  have  no  influence 
upon  practice :  and  that  the  greatest  heresy  is  an  immoral  life  :  that 
public  orthodoxy  has  been  very  various  in  different  countries ;  and 
in  the  same  country  at  different  times  ;  that  councils  and  assemblies 
of  divines,  not  being  infallible,  have  no  right  to  make  or  impose 
upon  others  any  creeds  or  confessions  of  liaith,  or  public  tests,  or 
standards  of  orthodoxy ;  or  to  fix  any  particular  sense  or  meaning 
on  the  Scripture :  that  no  man  is  bound  to  believe  as  our  fathers 
believed  ;  but  every  man  has  a  right  to  judge  for  himself;  and  that 
is  truth  to  every  man  which  he  believes  to  be  the  truth  :  that  every 
man  shall  be  saved  in  that  way  or  religion  which  he  thinks  is  right, 
let  it  be  what  it  will ;  provided  he  lives  according  to  it ;  that  it  is 
sufficient,  if  men  say  that  they  consent  to  the  substance  of  our 
Catechism  and  Confession,  without  rigorously  insisting  upon  every 
article  and  doctrine  in  it :  that  great  condescension  ought  to  be  used, 
and  sundry  doctrines  ought  to  be  given  up,  either  in  whole  or  in 
part,  or  different  explications  allowed  for  the  sake  of  unity. 

"  That  no  man  ought  to  be  so  uncharitable  as  to  exclude  another 
from  salvation,  or  any  public  office  of  instruction,  because  he  does 
not  think  as  he  does  :  that  men's  way  of  thinking  is  as  diflferent  as 
their  faces;  and  to  endeavour  to  make  all  men  think  alike,  is  to 
make  them  bigots,  and  hinder  all  free  inquiry  after  truth." 

That  is,  the  *'  artifices"  employed  in  President  Clap's  time  to 
favour  the  introduction  of  error,  were,  1.  Undervaluing  creeds  iind 
confessions,  and  subscribing  them  for  substance  of  doctrine.  2. 
Making  light  of  the  points  of  difference,  as  mere  philosophy,  or 
matters  of  speculation,  or  modes  of  explanation.  3.  Declaiming 
on  the  sin  of  destroying  the  unity  of  the  church  for  the  sake  of 
doctrine ;  on  the  duty  of  charity  towards  errorists  ;  on  the  right  of 


230  DOCTRINES  OF   NEW   ENGLAND   CHURCHES. 

free  inquiry ;  and  4.  Concealing  the  truth,  as  he  says,  p.  42 :  "  Men 
of  this  character  are  not  always  open  and  frank  in  declaring  their 
sentiments."  Such,  it  seems,  were  the  devices  employed  by  the 
advocates  of  the  New  Scheme  of  religion  a  hundred  years  ago. 
Cannot  the  reader,  without  our  aid,  furnish  modern  illustrations  in 
abundance  under  each  of  these  heads  ?  Our  limits  do  not  admit  of 
our  doing  it  for  him,  and  the  facts  are  so  notorious,  it  can  hardly 
be  necessary.  A  standing  topic  of  declamation,  is  the  folly  of 
expecting  men,  who  think  for  themselves,  to  join  in  adopting  an 
extended  creed.  If  the  substance  be  adopted,  that  is  all  that  can 
be  required.  And  the  substance  is  often  a  very  small  part  of  what 
is  really  characteristic  of  the  formula.  Is  it  not  also  a  common 
method  in  our  days  of  introducing  the  New  Divinity,  to  make 
much  of  the  distinction  between  the  doctrines  and  the  philosophy 
of  them  ?  to  claim  to  hold  the  doctrines  and  differ  only  in  the  expla- 
nation, as  even  John  Taylor  professed  to  hold  to  original  sin,  with 
a  new  explanation?  How  much  too  have  we  heard  of  the  sin  of 
heresy  hunting,  of  producing  disturbance  in  the  church,  and  of  the 
duty  of  living  in  peace  let  men  teach  what  they  may  ?  Who, 
however,  is  chargeable  with  the  sin  of  controversy  ?  the  innovators, 
or  those  who  defend  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints?  Is 
there  no  sin  in  attacking  brethren,  who  hold  the  faith  of  the  very 
standards  which  the  aggressors  have  adopted,  and  great  sin  in 
asserting  what  both  parties  have  professed  to  believe  ?  How  true 
it  is  what  the  famous  Mr.  Foxcroft,  of  Boston,  remarked  of  his 
generation,  "  that  false  moderation,  which  sacrifices  divine  revela- 
tions to  human  friendships,  and  under  colour  of  peace  and  candour 
gives  up  important  points  of  gospel  doctrine  to  every  opposer,  is 
still  consistent  with  discovering  a  malignity  towards  others  that 
appear  warm  defenders  and  constant  asserters  of  those  evangelical 
truths."* 

The  grand  device,  however,  of  errorists  in  every  age,  has  been 
concealment.  They  do  not  come  out  boldly  and  frankly  with  their 
true  sentiments,  but  endeavour  to  introduce  them  gradually  as  the 
public  mind  will  bear  them.  The  reader  will  probably  remember, 
when  the  doctrine  was  in  these  days  first  broached,  that  God 
could  not  prevent  sin  in  a  moral  system,  how  delicately  it  was 
insinuated  ;  it  was  merely  said  that  the  contrary  could  not  be 
proved,  or  ought  not  to  be  assumed ;  the  idea  was  thrown  out  as  a 
hypothesis  for  further  consideration.  It  may  also  be  within  the 
knowledge  of  the  reader  how  virtuously  indignant  the  Spectator 
was  with  Dr.  Woods  because  he  "  changed  Dr.  Taylor's  question 
into  an  assertion — his  hypothetical  statement  into  a  positive  affir- 
mation."t  Since  that  time,  however,  the  doctrine  has  been  asserted, 
interrogatively  and  affirmatively ;  categorically  and  inferentially. 
It  has  been  assumed  as  the  basis  of  argument;  the  denial  of  it  has 

*  Preface  to  President  Dickinson's  Second  Vindication  of  God's  Sovereign  Grace. 

Boston,  1748. 

t  Spectator,  1830,  p.  541. 


DOCTRINES  OP  NEW  ENGLANl  CHUKCHES.  231 

been  made  the  fountain  of  all  manner  of  heresy  and  blasphemies. 
Notwithstanding  all  this,  the  simple  hypothesis  is  still  resorted  to 
in  times  of  peculiar  emergency. 

Another  favourite  method  of  concealment  adopted  in  past  ages 
was  the  introduction  of  new  opinions  under  the  patronage  of 
revered  names.  This  may  remind  the  reader  of  the  numerous 
attempts  to  make  Edwards,  Bellamy,  Dwight,  and  others,  teach 
the  very  doctrines  which  they  strenuously  opposed,  in  order  to 
gain  the  sanction  of  their  names  for  the  errors  which  they  endea- 
voured to  refute.  And  finally,  as  we  must  stop  somewhere,  ano- 
ther method  of  concealment  is  the  use  of  ambiguous  terms,  or  the 
introduction  of  errors  under  the  old  formulas  of  expression, 
employed  in  a  new  sense.  Can  anything  be  more  seemingly 
orthodox  than  the  phrase  "  total  depravity  by  nature  ?"  How  little 
it  seems  to  differ  from  natural  depravity,  or  depravity  of  nature  ! 
Yet  they  are,  as  to  the  sense  intended,  the  poles  apart.  God  is 
said  to  foreordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass.  What  Calvinist 
could  desire  more  ?  Yet  to  foreordain  turns  out  to  mean,  as  it 
regards  sin  at  least,  to  submit  to  its  occurrence  as  an  unavoidable 
evil,  and  to  propose  to  do  all  in  the  power  of  Him  who  foreordains 
it,  to  prevent  that  occurrence.  Original  sin  used  to  mean,  in  the 
language  of  President  Edwards,  "  an  innate  sinful  depravity  of 
heart."  The  term  is  still  retained  by  those  who  teach  with  the 
New  Haven  Spectator,  Mr.  Duffield,  and  others,  that  infants  have 
no  moral  character.  Prof.  Fitch  says :  "  Nothing  can  in  truth  be 
called  original  sin,  but  his  first  moral  choice  or  preference  being 
evil."  Mr.  Duffield  says,  indeed,  "  original  sin  is  a  natural  bias  to 
evil."*  Here,  to  the  uninitiated  it  would  appear  that  two  things  are 
asserted,  first  that  this  bias  to  evil  is  sin ;  and  second,  that  it  is 
natural.  But  no  such  thing.  This  same  Mr.  Duffield  says, "  Instinct, 
animal  sensation,  constitutional  susceptibilities  create  an  impulse, 
which,  not  being  counteracted  by  moral  considerations  or  gracious 
influence,  lead  the  will  in  a  wrong  direction  and  to  wrong  objects. 
It  was  thus  that  sin  was  induced  in  our  holy  progenitors.  No  one 
can  plead  in  Eve  an  efficient  cause  of  sin  resident  in  her  nature  (any 
ptava  vis)  or  operative  power,  sinful  in  itself,  anterior  to  and  apart 
from  her  own  voluntary  act.  And  if  she  was  led  into  sin,  though 
characteristically  holy,  and  destitute  of  any  innate  propensity  to 
sin,  where  is  the  necessity  for  supposing  that  the  sins  of  her  pro- 
geny are  to  be  referred  to  such  a  cause  ?"  .  .  .  "  Temptation  alone 
is  sufficient  under  present  circumstances."f  Thus  after  all  it  ap- 
pears that  this  "  natural  bias  to  evil  "  is  nothing  more  than  the  con- 
stitutional susceptibihties  of  ournature,  such  as  it  existed  before  the 

*  Minutes  for  the  General  Assembly  for  1837.  Protest  by  George  Duffield,  E,  W. 
Gilbert  and  others,  against  the  adoption  of  the  report  on  so  much  of  the  memorial  of 
the  Convention  as  relates  to  erroneous  doctrines.  The  statement  of  doctrines  con- 
tained in  that  Protest,  as  explained  by  the  writings  of  its  leading  signers,  is  the  most 
extraordinary  example  of  the  use  of  old  terms  in  a  sense  directly  opposite  to  their 
ordinary  meaning,  which  we  have  ever  seen. 

t  Duffield  OQ  Regeneration,  p.  379,  3b0. 


232  DOCTRINES  OF  NEW  ENGLAND  CHURCHES. 

fall,  yet  this  bias  is  said  to  be  Sin.  Rather  than  not  be  orthodox 
and  hold  to  original  sin,  he  makes  it  exist  in  our  "  holy  progenitors" 
before  the  first  transgression  !  Can  this  be  exceeded  in  the  whole 
history  of  theological  diplomacy  ?  Yet  it  is  a  fair  interpretation 
of  the  language  of  the  Protest,  as  explained  by  the  writings  of  some 
of  its  authors. 

We  wish  it  were  in  our  power  to  insert  the  whole  of  President 
Clap's  pamphlet ;  but  we  have  already  much  exceeded  the  Hmits 
assigned  for  this  article.  We  must  therefore  conclude  with  a  few 
citations  given  without  remark. 

"  The  doctrines  contained  in  our  Catechism  and  Confession  of 
Faith,  particularly  the  divinity  and  satisfaction  of  Christ,  original 
sin,  the  necessity  of  special  grace  in  regeneration,  justification  by 
faith,  &c.,  have  been  universally  received,  established  and  taught  in  all 
ages  of  the  Christian  church  :  and  upon  all  the  search  I  have  been 
able  to  make  into  antiquity,  I  can  find  no  single  instance  of  any 
public  Confession  of  Faith,  drawn  up  by  any  council,  or  generally 
received  and  established  in  any  Christian  country  in  the  world, 
wherein  any  of  these  doctrines  have  been  plainly  and  expressly 
denied. 

"  For  though  there  have  been  some  men  scattered  up  and  down 
in  the  world,  and  sometimes  convened  in  assemblies,  who  have 
not  believed  these  doctrines,  and  have  sometimes  endeavoured 
covertly  to  disguise  them  and  let  them  drop,  and  by  degrees  to 
root  them  out  of  the  Christian  church  ;  yet  they  never  dared  openly 
and  formally  to  deny  them  by  any  public  act,  because  they  knew 
that  these  doctrines  had  been  so  universally  received  in  the 
Christian  church,  that  all  antiquity  would  condemn  them,  and  that 
such  an  open  denial  would  bring  upon  them  the  resentment  of  all 
mankind." 

On  page  thirty-seven  we  find  the  following  passage :  "  Some 
will  say  that  they  own  the  doctrine  of  original  sin;  but  they  mean 
nothing  but  a  contracted  disposition  or  inclination,  arising  from  a 
vicious  habit  or  practice,  and  deny  that  any  disposition  or  inclina- 
tion to  sin  is  naturally  derived  from  Adam,  and  assert  that  every 
child  comes  into  the  world  like  a  clean,  white  piece  of  paper. 

"Mr.  Taylor  calls  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  a  Scripture  doc- 
trine ;  and  yet  when  he  comes  to  explain  it,  with  regard  to  Adam's 
posterity,  he  makes  it  no  sin  at  all,  and  allows  nothing  but  that, 
upon  the  sin  of  Adam,  God  subjected  him  and  his  posterity  to  tem- 
poral sorrow,  labour  and  death  :*  And  these  are  not  punishments 
for  sin,  but  primarily  designed  for  the  benefit  of  mankind,  con- 
sidered as  innocent  creatures.  For,  he  says,  that  upon  the  occasion 
of  Adam's  sin,  God  appointed  our  life  frail,  laborious  and  sorrowful, 
and  at  length  to  be  concluded  by  death,  not  to  punish  us  for  another 
man's  sin,  but  to  lessen  temptation.f 

"  And,  therefore,  I  cannot  think  that  public  orthodoxy  in  teach- 

•«  Page  63."  t  "Page  68." 


DOCTRE«:S   OF   NEW   ENGLAND   CHURCHES. 


233 


ers  can  be  sufficiently  secured  barely  by  men's  saying  that  they 
consent  to  the  substance  of  our  Catechism  and  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  differ  only  in  some  small  circumstantials,  leaving  it  to  them  to 
judge  what  those  circumstantials  are:  for  a  man  may  suppose  or 
pretend  that  the  ten  commandments  are  the  most  substantial  part 
of  the  Catechism,  and  that  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  and  satis- 
faction of  Christ,  original  sin,  &c.,  are  but  mere  speculative  cir- 
cumstantial points,  upon  which  no  great  weight  ought  to  be  laid. 
Such  persons  ought  at  least  to  declare  what  particular  articles  they 
do  except,  so  that  others  may  judge  whether  they  are  mere  cir- 
cumstantials or  not. 

"  But  then  it  is  difficult,  if  not  dangerous,  to  give  up  any  one 
proper  doctrine  or  article  of  faith  contained  in  our  Confession,  for 
all  the  articles  of  faith  in  a  system  or  body  of  divinity  have  a 
necessary  relation  to  and  connexion  with  each  other ;  whoever, 
therefore,  gives  up  any  one  article  of  faith,  must,  if  he  is  consistent 
with  himself,  give  up  another  which  has  a  necessary  connexion 
with  it  or  dependence  upon  it,  and  so  on  till  he  gives  up  the  whole. 
Indeed,  some  men  seem  to  be  partly  in  one  scheme  of  religion  and 
partly  in  another  ;  but  such  men  are  always  inconsistent  with  them- 
selves ;  although  for  want  of  accurately  tracing  their  own  ideas 
they  are  not  always  sensible  of  it. 

"  Some  men  will  pretend  to  consent  to  an  article  of  faith,  and 
yet  believe  nothing  of  it,  in  the  true  grammatical  construction  of 
the  words,  and  the  meaning  of  the  composers;  e.  g.:  Some  who 
pretend  to  consent  to  the  thirty-nine  articles,  by  original  sin,  and 
the  corruption  of  human  nature,  mean  nothing  but  bodily  weak- 
ness and  sickness  ;  and  by  its  deserving  God's  wrath  and  damna- 
tion, mean  nothing  but  bodily  sickness  and  pain,  and  the  temporal 
miseries  of  this  life. 

"  So  the  meaning  of  that  article,  according  to  them,  is  that  Adam's 
sin  is  the  occasion  of  our  undergoing  bodily  sickness  and  weak- 
ness, which  deserve  bodily  sickness  and  pain. 

"  Condescension,  charity  and  unity,  are  very  excellent  things, 
when  applied  to  promote  the  ends  of  the  gospel ;  and  there- 
fore it  is  a  pity  they  should  upon  any  occasion  be  perverted  to 
destroy  it. 

"  But  condescension  has  no  more  to  do  with  articles  of  faith  than 
with  propositions  in  the  mathematics.  And  though  a  man  ought 
in  many  cases  to  give  up  his  own  right  or  interest,  yet  he  cannot 
in  any  case  give  up  the  truth  of  God  revealed  in  his  word. 

"  Charity  is  but  another  name  for  love,  and  the  consequent  effects 
of  it,  in  believing  or  hoping  the  best  concerning  any  man,  which 
the  nature  of  the  case  will  allow  ;  and  considering  how  apt  cor- 
rupt nature  is  to  intermix  self-interest,  passion  and  prejudice  with 
matters  of  religion,  it  is  a  virtue  which,  in  that  view,  ought  to  be 
much  insisted  upon :  but  charity  no  more  consists  in  inventing  or 
believing  new  terms  of  salvation  unknown  to  the  gospel  than  it 
does  in  believing  a  sick  man  will  recover,  when  the  symptoms  of 


2t34  DOCTRINES  OF  NEW  ENGLAND   CHURCHES. 

death  are  evidently  upon  him.  Such  charity  as  that  is  the  great- 
est uncharitablencss,  as  it  tends  to  lull  men  in  security  to  their  eter- 
nal destruction. 

"  Unity  in  a  joint-declared  consent  to  the  great  and  fundamental 
principles  of  religion,  and  practice  of  the  duties  of  it,  is  a  matter  of 
great  importance :  but  without  such  a  consent  unity  is  founded 
upon  nothing,  and  can  never  answer  any  of  the  great  ends 
proposed  in  the  gospel.  Men  must  be  agreed  at  least  in  the  object 
of  their  worship,  whether  it  be  the  eternal  self-existent  God,  or  a 
mere  creature;  and  in  order  to  maintain  this  unity  in  the  Christian 
church,  there  always  have  been  public  creeds  and  confessions  of 
faith  (all  agreeing  in  substance)  to  which  all,  especially  the  teach- 
ers, have  given  their  joint  consent. 

"  Neither  can  those  who  adhere  to  the  ancient  doctrines  of  the 
Christian  church,  be  properly  called  a  party :  that  odious  name 
properly  belongs  to  each  of  those  particular  sects,  which,  from 
time  to  time,  oppose  those  doctrines,  and  thereby  make  themselves 
a  party. 

"  The  Bible  is  indeed  the  only  foundation  of  our  Christian  faith  ; 
and  all  the  question  is,  in  what  sense  we  are  to  understand  it :  but 
so  far  as  any  regard  is  to  be  had  to  the  judgment  of  great  and 
good  men  in  expounding  of  it  (and  I  think  it  is  an  argument  of 
great  self-sufficiency,  if  not  self-conceit,  to  have  none  at  all),  yet 
the  number  and  quality  of  those  who  have  at  any  time  opposed 
these  doctrines  bear  no  comparison  to  the  vast  number  of  martyrs, 
and  other  eminently  wise  and  good  men,  who  have  constantly 
maintained  them.  And  the  opinion  of  Arius,  Pelagius,  Socinus, 
Arminius,  Foster,  Chubb,  Taylor,  and  all  their  followers,  are  but 
as  the  small  dust  of  the  balance,  when  put  into  the  scale  against  the 
opinion  of  the  whole  Christian  church  in  all  ages. 

"  But  I  am  free,  that  every  man  should  examine  for  himself,  and 
then  openly  declare  what  he  finds. 

"For  my  part,  I  have  critically  and  carefully,  and  I  think,  with 
the  utmost  impartiality,  examined  into  the  doctrines  contained  in 
our  Catechism  and  Confession  of  Faith,  and  believe  they  are  fully 
and  plainly  contained  in  the  sacred  oracles  of  truth,  perfectly 
agreeable  to  reason,  and  harmonious  with  each  other ;  and  that 
most  of  them  are  of  the  utmost  consequence  to  the  salvation  of 
the  souls  of  men.  And  therefore  look  upon  myself  in  duty  bound 
to  do  all  that  lies  in  my  power,  to  continue  and  propagate  those 
doctrines ;  especially  in  the  college  committed  to  my  care,  since 
that  is  the  fountain  from  whence  our  churches  must  be  supplied. 

"  And  I  hope  that  all  the  ministers  of  this  colony,  according  to 
the  recommendation  of  former  synods  and  later  general  associ- 
ations, will  be  careful  and  zealous  to  maintain  and  propagate  the 
same  in  all  our  churches  :  that  they  will  clearly  and  plainly  preach 
all  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  sacred  oracles  of  truth,  and 
especially  the  more  important  of  them,  summed  up  in  our  Cate- 
chism and  Confession  of  Faith ;  that  they  will  not  endeavour  to 


DOCTBINES  OF  NEW  ENGLAND  CHURCHES.  235 

conceal  or  disguise  any  of  these  doctrines,  nor  shun  to  declare  the 
whole  counsel  of  God.  That  they  will  be  careful  not  to  introduce 
into  the  sacred  ministry  any  but  such  as  appear  to  be  well-fixed  in 
these  principles  upon  which  our  churches  are  established.  It  is  a 
pleasure  to  me  to  observe,  that  no  person,  who  has  lately  been 
licensed  to  preach  as  a  candidate,  lies  under  any  suspicion  of  that 


ESSAY    VIII. 


CHRISTIAN   UNION. 


Thts  appears  to  be  the  work  of  a  pious,  intelligent  lawyer,  who 
was  removed  by  death  a  few  weeks  before  it  issued  from  the  press. 
It  is  dedicated  to  "  The  Reverend  David  Abeel,  American  Mis- 
sionary to  South  Eastern  Asia  ;"  and  breathes,  throughout,  a  spirit 
of  fervent  attachment  to  the  honour  and  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer. 
No  one,  we  think,  can  peruse  this  volume  without  receiving  an 
impression  of  profound  respect  for  the  piety  and  benevolence  of  the 
author.  And  while  we  suppose  it  impossible  for  a  judicious  mind 
to  adopt  all  his  views  and  anticipations,  we  are  still  willing  to 
believe  that  what  he  has  written  cannot  be  read  without  some  profit. 
His  apparent  soundness  in  the  faith  ;  his  zeal  for  the  honour  and 
spread  of  true  religion ;  and  the  animating  hope  which  he  che- 
rishes of  the  speedy  union  of  all  who  bear  the  Christian  name,  can 
scarcely  fail  of  warming  the  heart  of  every  reader  who  wishes 
well  to  the  progress  of  the  religion  of  Christ  in  our  revolted 
world. 

We  do  not  differ  from  our  author  as  to  the  desirableness  and 
importance  of  "Christian  Union."  If  the  invisible  Church  consists 
of  all  those,  throughout  the  world,  who  are  united  to  Christ  by 
faith  and  love ;  and  if  the  visible  Church  consists  of  all  those,  also 
in  every  part  of  the  world,  who  profess  the  true  religion,  together 
with  their  children,  it  must,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  be,  that 
each  is  one.  All  real  Christians  belong  to  the  former.  All  pro- 
fessing Christians  belong  to  the  latter.  Now,  as  there  is  but  one 
Christf  and  but  one  true  Religion,  it  is  manifest  that  the  "  body  of 
Christ  can  be  but  one."  We,  being  many,  says  the  apostle,  are  one 
body  in  Christ,  and  every  one  members  one  of  another.  Again,  he 
asks.  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the 
body  of  Christ  ?  For  ive,  being  many,  are  one  bread,  and  one  body  ; 
for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread.  Now  ye,  adds  he, 
in  the  same  epistle,  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members  in  par- 
ticular, 

*  Originally  published  in  1836,  in  review  of  "  Christian  Union  ;  or  an  Argument 
for  the  abolition  of  Sects."    By  Abraham  Van  Dyke,  Counsellor  at  Law. 


CHRISTIAN   TJNIOrf.  237 

Of  course  this  unity,  though  in  a  sad  degree  marred,  is  not  wholly- 
broken  by  diversity  of  denomination.  All  who  profess  the  true 
religion,  however  divided  by  place,  by  names,  or  by  form,  are  to 
be  considered  as  equally  belonging  to  that  great  family  denominat- 
ed the  Church.  The  Presbyterian,  the  Methodist,  the  Baptist,  the 
Episcopalian,  the  Independent,  who  hold  the  fundamentals  of  our 
holy  religion,  and  who,  of  course,  "  hold  the  Head,"  in  whatever 
part  of  the  globe  they  may  reside,  are  equally  members  of  the 
same  visible  community  ;  and  if  they  be  sincere  in  their  profession, 
will  all  finally  be  made  partakers  of  its  eternal  blessings.  And  the 
more  closely  they  hold  the  "  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace" 
and  love,  the  more  decidedly  they  are  one,  and  one  in  a  sense  more 
richly  significant  and  precious  than  can  be  ascribed  to  millions  who 
boast  of  a  mere  external  and  nominal  union.  They  have  one  Head, 
one  hope,  one  baptism ;  they  "  all  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat,  they 
all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink,"  and  will  assuredly  all  meet  in  the 
same  heavenly  family.  They  cannot  all  meet  together  in  the  same 
sanctuary  here  below,  even  if  they  were  disposed  to  do  so ;  but 
this  is  not  the  worst.  They  are  not  all  disposed  thus  to  meet. 
They  are  not  all  willing  to  acknowledge  one  another  as  fellow- 
members  of  the  same  body.  Yet,  in  spite  of  this  blindness  and 
infatuation  in  regard  to  their  own  relation  to  each  other,  they  are 
still  one,  in  a  sense,  and  to  a  degree,  of  which  they  themselves  are 
not  conscious. 

We  also  concur  with  the  author  of  the  work  before  us  in  our 
estimate  of  the  sin  and  mischief  of  every  measure  which  is 
unfriendly  to  this  unity,  or  which  tends  to  make  "  a  schism  in  the 
body."  "  Nothing,"  says  the  eloquent  Robert  Hall,  "  more  abhor- 
rent from  the  principles  and  maxims  of  the  sacred  oracles  can  be 
conceived,  than  the  idea  of  a  plurality  of  true  churches,  neither  in 
actual  communion  with  each  other,  nor  in  a  capacity  for  such 
communion.  Though  this  rending  of  the  seamless  coat  of  our 
Saviour,  this  schism  in  the  members  of  his  mystical  body,  is  by  far 
the  greatest  calamity  which  has  befallen  the  Christian  interest,  and 
one  of  the  most  fatal  efTects  of  the  great  apostasy  foretold  by  the 
sacred  penmen,  we  have  been  so  long  familiarized  to  it,  as  to  be 
scarcely  sensible  of  its  enormity ;  nor  does  it  excite  surprise  or 
concern  in  any  degree  proportioned  to  what  would  be  felt  by  one 
who  had  contemplated  the  church  in  the  first  ages.  Christian 
societies  regarding  each  other  with  the  jealousies  of  rival  empires, 
each  aiming  to  raise  itself  on  the  ruin  of  all  others,  making  extra- 
vagant boasts  of  superior  purity,  generally  in  exact  proportion  to 
their  departures  from  it,  and  scarcely  deigning  to  acknowledge  the 
possibility  of  obtaining  salvation  out  of  their  pale,  is  the  odious 
and  disgusting  spectacle  which  modern  Christianity  presents. 
The  evils  which  result  from  this  state  of  division  are  incalculable. 
It  supplies  infidels  with  their  most  plausible  topics  of  invective  ;  it 
hardens  the  consciences  of  the  irreligious  ;  it  weakens  the  hands 
of  the  good,  impedes  the  efficacy  of  prayer,  and  is  probably  the 


988  CHRISTIAN   UNION. 

principal  obstruction  to  that  ample  effusion  of  the  Spirit  which  is 
essential  to  the  renovation  of  the  world."*  In  all  this  we  heartily 
concur,  and  wish  it  were  duly  impressed  on  every  mind  in  Chris- 
tendom. 

We  of  course,  too,  agree  with  our  author  in  all  the  earnest 
wishes  expressed  by  him  for  the  perfect  restoration  of  the  unity 
of  the  Church.  To  every  Christian  heart  the  anticipation  of  that 
blessing  is  unspeakably  delightful.  Behold^  how  good  and  hoto 
pleasant  it  is  for  brethren  to  dwell  tos^ether  in  unity  !  It  is  like  the 
precious  ointment  upon  the  head  that  ran  down  upon  the  heard ; 
even  Aaron's  beard ;  that  went  down  to  the  skirts  of  his  garments  ; 
as  the  dew  of  Herman,  and  as  the  dew  that  descended  vpon  the 
mountains  of  Zion ;  for  there  the  Lord  commanded  the  blessings 
even  life  for  evermore.  Yes,  when  the  time  shall  come,  as  Mssur- 
edly  it  will  come,  when  the  followers  of  Christ  shall  all  speak 
the  same  thing — when  there  shall  he  no  divisions  among  them ;  but 
when  they  shall  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and 
in  the  same  judgment ;  then  every  beholder  will  be  satisfied  that 
it  is  a  blessing  worth  all  the  labour  and  importunate  prayer  which 
can  be  employed  for  its  attainment. 

But  when  Mr.  Van  Dyke  proceeds  to  the  consideration  of  the 
great  problem  how  the  "  Union"  for  which  he  pleads  is  to  be 
brought  about,  and  how  difficulties  which  stand  in  the  way  are  to  be 
obviated,  we  cannot  adopt  either  his  confidence,  or  what  we  under- 
stand to  be  his  plans.  He  seems  indeed  in  a  great  measure  to 
overlook  the  fact,  that  although  the  preservation  of  peace  and 
harmony  among  professing  Christians  is  precious,  and  ought  never 
to  have  been  interrupted  ;  yet  that  the  great  interests  of  truth  and 
righteousness  are  still  more  iadispensably  precious.  He  seems, 
though  he  professes  the  contrary,  not  to  have  had  an  adequate 
impression  of  the  character  of  that  "  wisdom  which  is  from  above, 
which  is  FIRST  pure,  then  peaceable."  If  we  are  not  deceived, 
we  desire  to  see  the  unity  of  the  church  of  Christ  perfectly  real- 
ized, in  all  its  beauty  and  power,  as  much  as  our  author  ever  did, 
and  as  much  as  any  of  his  most  sanguine  friends  can  do.  Yet  we 
could  not,  in  conscience,  recommend  that  all  denominations  of 
Christians,  who  profess  to  hold  the  fundamentals  of  religion,  in 
present  circumstances,  and  with  their  present  views,  convictions, 
habits  and  feelings,  should  throw  down  all  the  fences  which  sepa- 
rate them  from  one  another,  and  unite  all  their  heterogeneous 
materials  under  one  name,  and  one  organization.  Even  if  that 
name  and  organization  were  our  own,  the  proposal  would  still  be 
revolting  to  our  judgment.  We  should  regard  such  an  event  with 
entire  disapprobation,  for  the  following  reasons. 

1.  If  the  individuals  composing  this  multifarious,  united  mass, 
came  together  without  any  alteration  of  opinion  or  conviction  ; 
each  entertaining  his  own  former  sentiments  on  all  the  points  of 

•  Hall's  Works,  vol.  i.,  p.  289. 


CHRISTIAN   UNION. 

doctrine  and  order  which  once  separated  them,  and  still  resolving 
to  unite,  at  every  sacrifice,  however  vital,  for  the  sake  of  a  nomi- 
nal and  formal  union  ;  what  could  be  expected  from  such  a  dis- 
honest coalition,  but  a  curse  instead  of  a  blessing  ?  Every  attempt 
to  reconcile  differences  among  professing  Christians,  which  involves 
the  relinquishment  of  truth  ;  or  a  compromise  with  important  cor- 
ruption, either  in  doctrine  or  worship ;  or  giving  countenance  to 
what  is  deemed  an  injurious  departure  from  what  Christ  has  com- 
manded, is  undoubtedly  criminal  and  mischievous.  We  are  com- 
manded to  hold  *•  fast  the  form  of  sound  words"  which  we  have 
received  ;  nay,  to  "  contend  earnestly  for  the  f^iith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints  ;"  and,  no  doubt,  one  great  purpose  for  which  a  visible 
church  was  founded  in  our  world  was  that  it  might  preserve  pure 
and  entire  all  such- religious  truth,  worship,  and  ordinances,  as  God 
hath  revealed  and  appointed  in  his  word  ;  that  it  might  bear  a 
faithful  testimony  against  the  introduction  of  error,  by  whomsoever 
attempted,  into  "  the  household  of  faith."  If  so,  to  surrender  any 
essential  part  of  the  trust  committed  to  it,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  is 
to  make  a  sacrifice  which  the  word  of  God  forbids.  We  are 
required  "  a5  much  as  in  us  lies  to  live  peaceably  with  all  men." 
But  there  are  those  with  whom  we  cannot  live  in  peace  without 
offending  our  Master  in  heaven. 

2.  Let  us  suppose,  however,  the  case  to  be  different ;  and  then 
an  objection  equally  strong  against  the  union  which  seems  to  be 
contemplated,  immediately  presents  itself.  Let  us  suppose  that  the 
members  of  all  the  various  denominations  which  agree  to  come 
together,  do  so  under  the  impression  that  all  their  diversities  of 
doctrine  and  order,  as  long  as  they  do  not  affect  the  fundamentals 
of  religion,  strictly  so  called,  are  of  no  account,  and  ought  not  to 
forbid  the  most  intimate  union.  What  would  be  the  natural  effect 
of  their  settling  down  on  this  principle  ?  Would  it  not  be  to  d  s- 
courage  the  study  of  Christian  truth ;  to  take  away  a  large  part 
of  their  interest  in  "  searching  the  Scriptures  ;"  and  to  terminate  at 
a  stroke,  all  that  "  contending  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints,"  to  which  we  just  referred,  as  an  expressly  com- 
manded Christian  duty  ?  We  can  scarcely  conceive  of  anything 
more  adapted  to  take  off  the  minds  of  men  from  discriminating 
views  of  truth,  and  thus  gradually  to  undermine  enlightened  piety, 
than  unreserved  union  upon  such  principles.  Show  us  a  people, 
by  whatever  name  they  may  be  called,  who  in  regard  to  doctrine 
content  themselves  with  vague  generalities  ;  who  are  equally  satis- 
fied with  Calvinistic,  Arminian,  and  Pelagian  preaching;  and  who 
think  it  wrong  to  make  any  d  fficulty,  or  even  inquiry,  respecting 
the  theological  opinions  of  him  who  is  called  to  minister  to  them 
in  holy  things,  and  we  will  engage  to  show  you  a  people  of  small 
and  crude  knowledge ;  of  superficial  piety  ;  and  liable  to  be  "  car- 
ried about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine,"  and  the  *' cunning  craftiness 
of  those  who  lie  in  wait  to  deceive."  Almost  every  chapter  of 
our  pious  author  shows,  that  while  he  pleads  for  union  with  all  who 


fm 


CHRISTIAN   UNION. 


hold  truth  enough  to  become  instrumental  in  saving  the  soul,  he 
would  have  been  himself  altogether  out  of  his  element  in  listening 
to  any  other  instruction  than  that  which  accorded  with  the  pre- 
cious system  of  free  grace  through  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  our 
divine  Redeemer.     But,  after  all, 

3.  Supposing  that  such  a  union  of  all  Christian  denominations 
could  be  attained  without  any  dishonest  sacrifice,  and  without  any 
immediate  mischief,  what  would  be  the  benefit  of  it  ?  What  solid 
good  would  result  from  it,  either  to  the  body,  or  to  the  individuals 
who  might  compose  it  ?  Would  mere  coming  together  produce 
genuine  Christian  affection  ?  Would  those  who  were  thus  drawn 
together,  necessarily,  or  even  probably,  love  one  another  the  more  ? 
We  have  no  doubt  that  the  profound  and  pious  Dr.  Owen,  the 
learned  Independent,  spoke  the  truth  on  this  subject,  when  he  said, 
"  I  should  be  very  sorry  that  any  man  living  should  outgo  me  in 
desires  that  all  who  fear  God  throughout  the  world,  especially  in 
these  nations,  were  of  one  way,  as  well  as  of  one  heart.  I  know 
that  I  desire  it  sincerely.  But  1  do  verily  believe,  that  when  God 
shall  accomplish  it,  it  will  be  the  effect  of  love,  not  the  cause  of 
love.  It  will  proceed  from  love,  before  it  brings  forth  love.  There 
is  not  a  greater  vanity  in  the  world  than  to  drive  men  into  a  par- 
ticular profession,  and  then  suppose  that  love  will  be  the  necessary 
consequence  of  it ;  to  think  that  if,  by  sharp  rebukes,  by  cutting, 
bitter  expressions,  they  can  but  drive  men  into  such  and  such  prac- 
tices, love  will  certainly  ensue."  If  half  a  dozen  families  should  be 
drawn,  by  ardent  attachment  to  each  other,  to  take  up  their  abode 
together  in  the  same  spacious  mansion,  they  might  live  together 
in  peace  and  comfort,  because  the  previously  existing  affection 
which  drew  them  together,  would  dispose  them  to  overlook,  or 
at  any  rate  to  surmount  many  of  the  difficulties  of  their  new  situation. 
But  what  man  in  his  senses  would  think  of  prevailing  on  the  same 
number  of  families,  hitherto  strangers  to  each  other,  and  with  no 
decisive  congeniality  of  feeling,  to  abandon  their  separate  dwellings, 
and  all  come  under  the  same  roof?  If  he  were  a  thinking  man, 
and  at  all  instructed  by  experience,  he  would  expect  to  find  their 
peace,  their  real  enjoyment,  destroyed,  instead  of  increased,  by 
their  local  and  nominal  union.  The  fact  is,  Christian  union  in  name 
and  outward  form  is  worthless,  unless  the  spirit  of  Christian  love 
accompany  and  pervade  it.  The  nearer  diffierent  denominations 
approach  to  each  other  without  this,  the  more  apt  they  will  be  to 
quarrel  and  fight.  We  have  no  doubt  that  one  great  feature  of  the 
*'  latter  day  glory"  will  be  that  the  "  watchmen  on  the  walls  of 
Zion,"  and  the  great  mass  of  the  people  of  God,  will  all  "  see  eye 
to  eye,"  and  walk  together  in  the  love  of  God,  and  in  the  consola- 
tions of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  this  harmony  will  be  produced  and 
maintained  by  love.  Love  will  pervade  the  world,  binding  all  its 
inhabitants  together,  and,  therefore,  all  will  "  speak  the  same  thing," 
and  walk  together  in  peace  and  concord.  We  hope  that  some  now 
alive  will  see  the  day  when  all  the  diflferent  classes  of  Presbyte- 


CHRISTIAN    UNION.  241 

rians  in  the  United  States,  whether  of  the  Dutch  Church,  the 
German  Reformed,  the  Associate,  the  Associate  Reformed,  and  the 
Reformed  Presbyterians,  shall  be  united  with  those  of  the  General 
Assembly.  In  what  manner  it  will  be  accomplished,  whether  by 
our  joining  them,  or  their  joining  us,  we  cannot  predict ;  nor  do  we 
care,  provided  the  great  interests  of  truth  and  holiness  be  secured 
in  the  union.  But  we  must  say,  that  if  it  were  now  proposed  by 
any  one  to  commence  a  system  of  measures  for  bringing  about 
such  an  event  at  once,  we  should  be  found  in  the  opposition ;  not, 
of  course,  from  unfriendliness  to  the  object  ultimately  aimed  at ; 
but  from  a  deep  persuasion  that  none  of  the  parties  are  yet  ready 
to  unite ;  that  if  they  could  be  prevailed  upon  to  come  together,  at 
present,  it  would  be  a  calamity  instead  of  a  blessing ;  and  that  no 
union  worth  attaining  can  ever  be  formed,  until  all  the  parties  shall 
be  actuated  by  such  a  spirit  of  love,  that  they  can  no  longer  be 
kept  apart.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  will  their  union  be  a  real 
blessing;  and  then  arguments  and  importunity  to  unite  will  be 
wholly  unnecessary. 

One  of  the  great  boasts  of  the  Romish  Church  is  that  it  is  one. 
It  reproaches  Protestants  as  broken  up  into  sects,  wholly  incon- 
sistent with  unity  ;  while  it  claims  for  itself  to  be  a  perfectly  united 
body,  and  lays  great  stress  on  this  alleged  union,  as  one  of  the 
indubitable  marks  of  the  only  true  Church.  But  to  what,  after  all, 
does  their  union  amount  ?  Is  there  more  of  real.  Christian,  scrip- 
tural unity  among  the  Papists  than  among  other  denominations 
who  bear  the  Christian  name?  Nay,  is  there  anythmg  like  as 
much  ?  We  utterly  deny  it.  There  may  be  more  verbal,  nominal, 
technical  unity  among  them  than  among  most  branches  of  the 
Protestant  body;  that  is,  there  may  be  more  verbal  acknowledg- 
ment of  a  kind  of  deified  individual ;  more  general  agreement  in 
praising  and  wondering  after  a  human  idol ;  more  fixed  staring  of 
all  eyes  at  the  great  central  seat  of  idolatry,  and  of  unhallowed 
dispensations.  But  is  there  more  knowledge  of  the  truth  among 
them  ?  more  love  of  the  truth '?  more  love  of  one  another  ?  more 
love  to  the  Saviour?  more  holy  concurrence  in  honouring  his  law, 
his  atoning  blood,  his  justifying  righteousness,  his  life-giving  Spirit? 
Is  there  more  enlightened,  spiritual  communion  of  saints,  with  their 
living  Head,  and  with  one  another?  Is  there  more  of  what  the 
Scriptures  denominate,  all  "  eating  the  same  spiritual  meat,  and  all 
drinking  the  same  spiritual  drink?"  This  is  the  "unity  of  the 
Spirit"  which  the  Bible  describes,  and  which  alone  either  deserves 
the  name,  or  is  adapted  really  to  bind  the  family  of  Christ  together. 
Have  the  Papists  more  of  this  than  the  Protestants,  whom  they  so 
studiously  vilify  ?  Let  those  judge  who  know  what  the  Papacy  is. 
This  claim,  like  all  their  other  claims,  is  founded  in  falsehood  and 
deception.  There  is  far  more  real  Bible  unity  among  many  bodies 
of  Protestants,  with  all  their  apparent  discord,  than  among  the 
members  of  that  much  larger  family,  who  are  for  ever  boasting  that 
they  exceed  all  others  in  Christian   unity,  because  they  are  all 

16 


242  CHRISTIAN    UNION. 

equally  related  by  name  to  the  "  man  of  sin,"  the  "  son  of  perdition,^* 
who  shall  be  consumed  with  the  breath  of  the  Saviour's  mouth,  and 
destroyed  with  the  brightness  of  his  coming." 

4.  But  we  would  go  one  step  further.  Not  only  do  we  believe  that 
different  denominations  of  Christians  would  find  no  real  advantage  in 
uniting,  until  they  shall  be  drawn  and  bound  together  by  such  a  spirit 
of  love,  as  will  make  their  union  a  source  of  pleasure  and  edification ; 
but  we  are  persuaded  that,  as  matters  now  stand,  there  are  many 
advantages  resulting  both  to  themselves  and  to  the  civil  community, 
from  their  remaining  in  a  state  of  separation  from  each  other.  We 
hope  that  in  attempting  to  maintain  this  position,  we  shall  not  be 
misunderstood.  We  consider  every  schism  in  the  body  of  Christ 
as  a  sin ;  and  of  course,  can  never  commend  or  rejoice  in  it,  in 
itself  considered.  But  is  it  a  new  doctrine  that  the  infinitely  wise 
and  Almighty  Governor  of  the  world,  continually  overrules  error, 
and  even  atrocious  crimes,  for  good  ?  That  what  ought  never  to 
have  happened,  yet,  having  happened,  in  the  adorable  providence 
of  God,  is  often  so  bounded,  controlled  and  disposed  of  as  to 
result  in  much  benefit  on  the  whole  ?  Surely  the  wrath  of  man 
shall  praise  God,  and  the  remainder  of  wrath  he  will  restrain. 

If  man  were  what  he  ought  to  be,  it  would  be  a  great  happi- 
ness to  the  world,  if  all  Europe  were  one  mighty  monarchy.  For 
then  there  would  be  one  system  of  laws ;  one  equitable,  consistent 
mode  of  treating  all  mercantile  and  other  sojourners ;  one  uniform 
circulating  medium  over  the  whole  continent.  But  taking  man  as 
he  is,  what  a  misfortune  would  it  be  to  the  world,  if  one  such 
great  overpowering  empire  governed  that  whole  quarter  of  the 
globe  !  What  systematic  and  wide-spread  oppression  would  afflict 
the  human  family  !  Every  other  portion  of  the  world  would  be 
held  in  terror.  How  the  matter  actually  stood  when  our  supposi- 
tion was,  many  centuries  ago,  in  a  considerable  degree,  realized, 
all  know  who  have  any  acquaintance  with  history.  As  it  is,  there 
are  many  powerful  monarchies  on  that  continent,  which  balance 
each  other's  power ;  which  keep  one  another  in  check ;  and  thus 
make  it  the  interest  of  all  to  be  mutually  respectful,  equitable  and 
accommodating.  It  is  true,  these  rival  monarchies  are  often 
involved  in  painful  and  offensive  conflicts.  Their  pride,  their  ava- 
rice, and  their  various  hateful  passions,  lead  to  scenes  of  strife  and 
war  of  the  most  revolting  character.  These  are  highly  criminal, 
no  doubt,  and  deeply  to  be  deplored.  But  they  are  less  evils  than 
the  unquestioned  and  gloomy  reign  of  a  giant  tyranny,  brooding 
over  a  continent ;  without  check  or  balance ;  without  any  one 
even  to  say  "  what  doest  thou  ?" 

A  similar  train  of  thought  may  be  indulged  with  respect  to  the 
actual  divisions  in  the  Church  of  God.  They  ought  never  to  have 
happened.  They  never  would  have  happened  had  it  not  been  for 
the  pride,  the  prejudices,  the  selfishness,  and  the  ambition  of 
depraved  man.  They  were  sinful  in  the  outset.  They  are  sinful 
still.     There  is  more  or  less  sin  in  their  daily  continuance.     Yet 


CHRISTIAN    UNION.  243 

all  this  may  be  so,  and  it  may  notwithstanding  be  certain  and 
manifest  that  the  Almighty  King  of  Zion  is  continually  bringing 
good  out  of  them.  They  exercise  a  watch  and  care  over  one 
another  analogous  to  that  which  is  exercised  over  each  other  by 
the  members  of  the  same  church.  They  superintend,  and,  to  a 
considerable  extent,  influence  the  movements  of  each  other.  They 
produce  in  each  other,  in  various  ways,  a  salutary  watchfulness 
and  emulation.  Who  does  not  know  that  the  presence  and  influ- 
ence of  Protestants  when  residing  in  large  numbers,  and  bearing  a 
respectable  character,  within  the  bosom  of  communities  predomi- 
nantly Roman  Catholic,  have  been  visible,  though  not  often  in  con- 
verting, yet  always  in  more  or  less  restraining  and  purifying  the 
corrupt  mass  around  them  ?  Who  can  doubt  that  the  Bible  is 
more  studied  than  it  would  otherwise  be  when  rival  denominations 
search  its  pages  day  and  night  to  find  support  for  their  respective 
creeds  and  claims?  Who  needs  to  be  told  that  the  amicable 
eflforts  and  struggles  of  different  sects  to  maintain  their  peculiar 
opinions,  have  served  to  keep  the  world  awake  and  active,  and  to 
prevent  religious  society  from  sinking  into  a  stagnant  and  pestife- 
rous apathy  ?  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  established 
Church  of  Scotland,  ever  since  the  rise  of  the  Secession  body  in 
that  country,  has  been  materially  benefited  in  various  ways  by 
the  zeal,  the  strictness,  and  the  exemplary  piety,  which  generally 
characterized  the  Seceders.  And  Dr.  John  Edwai-ds,  a  learned 
divine  of  the  established  Church  of  England,  expressly  declares 
that  "  W  we  would  but  open  our  eyes,  we  should  see  that  we  are 
beholden  to  the  Dissenters  for  the  continuance  of  a  great  part  of 
our  theological  principles :  for  if  the  High  Churchmen  had  no 
checks,  they  would  have  brought  in  Popery  before  this  time  by  their 
overvaluing  pomp  and  ceremony  in  divine  worship.  So  that  if 
there  had  been  no  Dissenters,  the  Church  of  England  had  been 
long  since  ruined." — Preacher,  II.,  p.  133. 

Mr.  Van  Dyck,  after  urging  union  among  Christians  by  the 
usual  popular  topics,  which  are,  on  the  whole,  well  exhibited,  and 
always  with  pious  earnestness  and  ardour,  proceeds  to  answer 
objections.  Accordingly,  he  takes  up  in  order,  and  attempts  to 
dispose  of  the  objections  against  his  scheme  drawn  from  six 
sources — as,  "1.  That,  if  the  proposed  union  should  take  place,  the 
benefit  of  emulation  would  be  lost.  2.  That  it  would  involve  a  sacri- 
fice of  principle  to  unite  with  Christians  who  have  not  the  same 
faith.  3.  That  divers  denominations  are  necessary  to  preserve  the 
purity  of  doctrine.  4.  That  divers  denominations  are  necessary  to 
operate  to  advantage  upon  all  classes  of  the  people.  5.  The 
danger  of  uniting  church  and  state.  6.  That  if  sects  were  abolished, 
the  Church  would  soon  be  again  divided."  .  In  reply  to  all  these 
objections  our  author  writes  with  unabated  fluency,  ardour,  and 
confidence ;  but  in  several  cases,  we  must  say,  by  no  means  to  our 
satisfaction.  Some  of  these  objections,  we  acknowledge,  are  not 
very  formidable  in  their  import ;  but  in  regard  to  others,  we  are 


244 


CHRISTIAN    UNION. 


far  from  being  as  sanguine  as  Mr.  Van  Dyck,  that  they  can  be 
easily  set  aside.  For  example,  what  he  says  on  the^rs^  objection, 
viz.,  that  "  if  the  proposed  union  of  all  sects  should  take  place,  the 
benefit  of  emulation  would  be  lost,"  appears  to  us  of  little  weight. 
We  are  not  prepared,  with  some,  to  condemn  all  emulation  as  cri- 
minal. If  we  do  not  mistake,  the  inspired  Paul,  in  more  than  one 
or  two  places,  in  his  Epistles  to  the  Churches,  tries  to  impel  Chris- 
tians to  increased  zeal  and  diligence  in  duty  by  setting  before  them 
what  others  had  done,  and  expressing  reluctance  that  others  should 
outdo  them  in  laudable  zeal  and  effort.  Emulation,  we  suppose, 
like  anger,  is  lawjul  or  wicked,  according  to  circumstances,  and 
according  to  its  character.  The  greater  part  of  the  emulation  in 
our  world,  we  take  for  granted,  is  unhallowed  and  utterly  indefen- 
sible. And  even  the  greater  part  of  that  which  exists  and  operates 
among  professing  Christians,  we  feel  willing  to  unite  in  condemn- 
ing, as  corrupt  in  its  origin,  and  corrupt  in  its  exercise.  But  what 
then  ?  We  ask  again,  Is  it  a  new  thing  for  sin  to  be  overruled  for 
good  ?  Can  any  man  who  has  eyes  to  see,  and  ears  to  hear,  doubt 
that  different  denominations  of  Christians  have  been  impelled  to 
make  efforts,  and  to  accomplish  an  amount  of  labour  which  would 
by  no  means  have  been  attempted,  if  the  presence  and  efforts  of 
rival  sects  had  not  operated  as  a  continual  excitement  ?  Condemn 
the  motive  and  welcome.  You  have,  in  many  cases,  a  right  to  do 
so.  But  we  are  so  happy  as  to  live  under  the  government  of 
Zion's  Almighty  King,  who  can  bring  good  out  of  evil,  and  light 
out  of  darkness.  The  inspired  apostle  seems,  as  we  understand 
him,  to  have  felt  and  argued  thus.  *'  Some  indeed,  says  he,  preach 
Christ,  even  of  envy  and  strife,  and  some  also  of  good  will.  What 
then  ?  notwithstanding  everyway,  whether  in  pretence  or  in  truth, 
Christ  is  preached  :  and  I  therein  do  rejoice,  yea,  and  will  rejoice." 
Now  it  is  evidently  no  part  of  our  duty  to  wish  that  unhallowed 
tempers  may  be  indulged,  because  infinite  wisdom  and  power  can 
and  does  bring  good  out  of  them.  But  if  we  see  plainly,  that  one 
hundred  thousand  Christians,  divided  into  jour  parts,  will  accom- 
plish, and  are  accomplishing,  four,  if  not  ten  times  as  much  as  the 
same  number  would  accomplish  if  externally  united,  supposing  the 
united  body  to  have  the  same  amount  of  real  piety  with  the  best 
portion  of  the  divided  body ;  we  say,  if  this  be  manifest,  while  we 
ought  to  mourn  over  everything  unhallowed  both  in  the  separa- 
tion and  in  the  exercises  of  the  respective  divisions,  we  may  surely 
rejoice,  as  the  apostle  did,  in  the  general  result ;  and  pray  for  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  everything  inconsistent  with  the  will 
of  God  may  be  taken  out  of  the  way. 

But  we  are,  if  possible,  still  less  satisfied  with  the  manner  in 
which  our  author  disposes  of  the  second  objection,  viz. :  "  That  it 
would  involve  a  sacrifice  of  principle  to  unite  with  Christians  who 
have  not  the  same  faith."  We  are  quite  ready  to  concede  that 
there  are  doctrinal  differences  among  Christians  which  ought  not 
to  keep  them  apart ;  and  that  even  some  doctrinal  differences  not 


CHRISTIAN    UNION.  245 

destitute  of  importance^  but  short  of  fundamental,  are  entirely  con- 
sistent with  affectionate  ecclesiastical  communion.  But  still,  when 
we  find  Mr.  Van  Dyck,  after  insisting  on  this,  appearing  to  find 
no  further  difficulty,  and  to  consider  his  argument  as  triumphantly 
made  out,  we  must  say,  that  thereat  we  do  greatly  marvel.  The 
consideration  of  a  single  case,  we  think,  demolishes  all  that  he  has 
advanced  in  support  of  his  theory,  and  demonstrates  that  his  plan 
is  not  feasible.  A  pious,  conscientious  Baptist  fully  coincides  in  his 
doctrinal  belief  with  a  pious,  orthodox  Presbyterian.  They  can 
listen  to  the  same  public  instruction  with  cordial  pleasure,  and  unite 
in  the  same  prayers  with  unmingled  fervour  of  devotion.  In  regard 
to  all  these  things  they  are  one  in  spirit,  and  could,  without  any 
sacrifice,  be  one  in  name  and  form.  But  the  Baptist  conscien- 
tiously believes  that  no  baptism  is  valid  but  that  which  is  adminis- 
tered to  adults,  and  by  immersion.  He  would  be  glad  to  be 
united  with  his  Presbyterian  brother  whom  he  "  loves  in  the  truth," 
and  to  sit  down  with  him  at  the  same  sacramental  table.  But 
he  is  prevented  by  a  conscientious  scruple  which  he  can  by  no 
means  dismiss.  He  verily  believes  that  the  Presbyterian  is  not 
a  baptized  man ;  and  of  course,  according  to  his  view  of  truth 
and  duty,  he  cannot  commune  with  him.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Presbyterian  has  equally  serious  and  immovable  scruples. 
For  although  he  has  no  doubt  that  his  Baptist  friend  is  a  truly 
baptized  man,  and  can,  therefore,  without  hesitation,  admit  him  to 
occasional  communion  at  his  sacramental  table  ;  yet  he  is  deeply 
persuaded  that  the  Baptist  doctrine  and  practice  by  which  infants 
are  shut  out  from  all  membership  and  privileges  in  the  Church  of 
Christ,  are  not  merely  unscriptural,  and  of  course  wrong,  but 
amount  to  a  most  serious  and  mischievous  error.  He  is  honestly 
convinced  not  only  that  the  Baptist  system  in  relation  to  this  point 
is  contrary  to  Scripture ;  but  also  that  its  native  tendency  is  to 
place  children,  who  are  the  hope  of  the  Church,  in  a  situation  less 
friendly  to  the  welfare  of  Zion,  and  less  favourable,  by  far,  to  their 
own  salvation,  than  that  in  which  they  are  placed  by  the  Paedo- 
baptist  system ;  and  that  its  ultimate  influence  on  the  rising  gene- 
ration, on  family  religion,  and  on  the  growth  and  purity  of  the 
Church,  must  be  deeply  injurious.  We  ask,  what  is  to  be  done  in 
this  case  ?  It  is  evident  there  can  be  no  compromise  here,  if  the 
sincere  and  solemn  convictions  of  each  party  be  such  as  we  have 
supposed.  And  yet  such  cases  exist  in  great  numbers,  at  the  pre- 
sent hour.  What  would  be  the  consequence  if  large  bodies  of 
Christian  professors,  thus  differing,  were  to  attempt  to  unite  in  a 
church-state  I  Could  they  commune  together  ?  Every  one  sees 
that  it  would  be  impossible.  The  Baptist  could  not  indulge,  how- 
ever strongly  his  inclination  might  plead  for  it,  even  in  occasional 
communion  with  his  Presbyterian  friend,  without  relinquishing  a 
deeply  conscientious  conviction,  not  about  a  speculative,  but  a 
practical  matter.  And  even  the  Presbyterian,  though  not  restrained 
from  occasional   communion  with  his  Baptist  friend,   could  not 


246  CHRISTIAN   UNION. 

possibly  unite  with  him  in  a  regular  church-state,  without  aban- 
doning principles  which  he  regarded  as  vitally  important  to  the 
interests  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom.  Upon  the  plan  of  Mr.  Van 
Dyck,  we  should  be  utterly  non-plussed  by  such  a  difficulty.  And 
yet  we  see  not  but  that  such  difficulties  must  present  themselves  at 
every  turn,  in  attempting  to  carry  into  execution  the  plan  for 
which  our  author  so  earnestly  pleads.  But  we  have  not  room  fur- 
ther to  pursue  the  train  of  his  reasoning. 

When  we  first  heard  of  the  publication  and  character  of  the 
work  before  us,  we  were  forcibly  reminded  of  a  hero  in  the  same 
vocation,  who  flourished  about  a  hundred  and  seventy  or  eighty 
years  ago ;  who  devoted  more  than  half  his  life  assiduously  to  the 
benevolent  enterprise  ;  and  whose  want  of  success,  we  fear,  is 
destined  to  be  again  exemplified  in  the  case  of  the  benevolent 
American  labouring  in  the  same  field.  We  refer  to  the  celebrated 
John  Dury,  a  native  of  Scotland,  who  was  born  about  the  begin- 
ning of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  who,  from  1631  to  1674,  was 
constantly  and  laboriously  engaged  in  bringing  about  a  general 
pacification  and  union  throughout  the  Protestant  world.  He 
devoted  himself  to  this  object  with  an  ardour  and  a  perseverance 
altogether  without  a  parallel.  He  seems  to  have  been  an  honest, 
amiable,  pious,  and  learned  man ;  but  by  no  means  remarkable  for 
the  soundness  of  his  judgment.  He  conceived  the  plan  of  uniting 
all  the  Lutherans  and  Reformed  in  one  great  body.  For  this  pur- 
pose he  laboriously  travelled  through  every  Protestant  country  in 
Europe  ;  wrote  letters  ;  personally  addressed  the  clergy  and  the 
people  of  both  communions  ;  persuaded,  entreated,  warned,  and, 
by  every  variety  of  means,  exerted  himself  to  terminate  the  strife 
and  conflicts  of  Protestants,  and  to  bring  them  all  together  under 
one  general  name  and  form.  He  took  unwearied  pains  to  engage 
in  this  enterprise,  kings,  princes,  and  magistrates,  as  well  as 
ecclesiastical  dignitaries,  and  all  others  whom  he  could  approach. 
Archbishop  Laud  at  first  approved  and  recommended  his  plan  ; 
but  afterwards  threw  difficulties  in  his  way,  intending,  it  would 
appear,  to  use  him  only  as  far  and  as  long  as  he  thought  he  could 
employ  him  as  an  instrument  for  promoting  prelacy.  Bishop  Hall 
also,  and  Bishop  Bedell,  gave  him  and  his  enterprise  their  counte- 
nance and  recommendation,  in  the  beginning  of  his  career ;  but  how 
long  they  continued  to  encourage  him  is  not  known.  Mr.  Dury 
was  bred  a  Presbyterian,  and  received  in  early  life  Presbyterian 
ordination.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  of 
Divines,  and  signed  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  ;  but  was 
prevailed  upon,  on  the  principle  that  it  might  facilitate  the  attain- 
ment of  his  grand  object,  to  submit  to  a  re-ordination  in  the  Church 
of  England.  He  spent  more  than  forty  years  in  this  benevolent 
enterprise  ;  travelled  again  and  again,  with  wonderful  perse- 
verance, throughout  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  from  one  end 
to  the  other  of  the  continent  of  Europe ;  consulted  Universi- 
ties, and  when   their   answers    were   favourable,   communicated 


CHRISTIAN   UNION.  247 

them  to  the  public.  He  published  himself  more  than  twenty  books  ; 
some  in  Latin,  for  circulation  throughout  the  Continent,  and 
others  in  English.  After  making,  for  many  years,  the  union 
of  all  the  Reformed  and  the  Lutheran  Churches  his  professed 
object,  he  extended  his  views,  and  seemed  to  think  the  union 
of  all  professing  Christians  practicable  !  He  alleged,  and  en- 
deavoured to  convince  those  whom  he  addressed,  that  all  who 
could  agree  to  receive  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and 
the  Ten  Commandments,  ought  to  be  united  in  one  family.  And 
finally,  appearing  to  adopt  the  opinion  that  all  religion  consisted  in 
certain  mystical  feelings  which  might  be  found  in  connexion  with 
almost  any  and  every  torm  of  doctrinal  belief,  he  seemed  to  con- 
sider scarcely  any  diversity  of  opinion  as  a  sufficient  ground  for 
separation. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  Mr.  Dury,  in  this  enthusiasm 
of  liberality,  found  few  enlightened  and  respectable  adherents. 
The  majority  of  those  who  favoured  his  plan  belonged  to  the 
Reformed  Churches.  The  great  mass  of  the  Lutheran  body 
opposed  him  throughout,  and  many  of  them  with  warmth  and  even 
violence.  John  Matthiae  and  George  Calixtus  were  almost  the 
only  conspicuous  Lutheran  divines  who  fell  in  with  his  plan,  and 
appeared  as  his  advocates.  On  the  whole,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  Dury's  enterprise  rather  increased  alienation  than  promoted 
unity.  He  wore  out  his  days  in  unprofitable  toil ;  bore  rebuffs, 
insults  and  multiplied  troubles  with  wonderful  patience,  until  he 
finally  died  in  obscurity  and  poverty,  neglected  by  those  who  had 
once  encouraged  him  to  go  forward  in  the  prosecution  of  his  Uto- 
pian scheme.  Nor  was  this  all.  The  influence  of  what  was  done 
on  the  Lutheran  Church  was  peculiarly  unhappy.  The  publica- 
tions of  Matthiae,  under  the  title  of  the  Olive  Branch,  were  pub- 
licly condemned  as  pestiferous,  and  by  a  royal  edict  excluded  from 
Sweden,  in  which  kingdom  the  author  lived.  And  with  regard  to 
Calixtus,  while  he  endeavoured,  as  Mosheim  remarks,  to  free  the 
Church  from  all  sects,  he  was  considered  by  great  numbers  of  his 
brethren  as  being  the  father  of  a  new  sect,  that  of  the  Syncretists ; 
a  sect  which  was  considered  as  pursuing  peace  and  union  at  the 
expense  of  divine  truth.  He  became  instrumental  in  throwing  the 
whole  Lutheran  body  into  a  most  unhappy  commotion,  which  was 
a  long  time  in  passing  away. 

Before  taking  leave  of  this  work,  we  cannot  forbear  to  speak  of 
another  review  of  it  published  in  the  month  of  September  last,  in 
a  contemporary  and  highly  respected  periodical,*  from  the  pen  of 
the  Right  Rev.  B.  B.  Smith,  Episcopal  Bishop  of  Kentucky.f 

*  The  Literary  and  Theological  Review,  conducted  by  the  Rev.  Leonard  Woods, 
Junior. 

t  We  are  aware  that  commenting  on  an  anonymous  review  might  be  considered  as 
unusual,  and  of  questionable  delicacy.  But  in  the  present  case,  as  the  writer  gives 
his  name  to  the  public,  we  suppose  there  is  no  more  impropriety  in  referring  to  it, 
than  in  animadverting  on  any  other  publication  made  under  the  author's  name. 


84®  CHRISTIAN    UNION. 

Before  reading  the  article  we  felt  some  curiosity  to  see  how  a  gen- 
tleman, once  somewhat  known  as  a  low-churchman,  but  since 
advanced  to  the  prelacy,  would  speak  of  a  work  by  a  pious  Dutch 
Presbyterian,  pleading  for  the  union  of  all  Christians.  We  had 
not  read  far,  however,  before  we  perceived  that  the  scope  and  evi- 
dent purpose  of  the  whole,  though  ostensibly  liberal,  and  conducted 
throughout  with  great  respectfulness  and  delicacy,  is  as  purely 
sectarian  as  possible  ;  and  contains,  though  not  in  so  many  words, 
yet  in  spirit,  a  kind  invitation  of  the  whole  world  into  the  Episcopal 
Church.  On  the  character  of  this  article  we  take  the  freedom  to 
make  a  few  remarks,  not  in  the  polemical  spirit,  but  that  the  imper- 
fectly disclosed  purpose  of  Bishop  Smith  may  be  distinctly  under- 
stood ;  and  especially  as  the  periodical  work  which  contains  it  cir- 
culates extensively  among  Presbyterians. 

1.  Our  first  remark  in  relation  to  the  article  in  question  is,  that 
one  of  the  most  striking  ecclesiastical  incongruities  we  can  think 
of  is  to  find  a  thorough-going  "  high-churchman"  speaking  with 
complacency,  and  with  raised  expectation,  of  Christian  union. 
By  high-churchmen  every  one  will  understand  us  to  mean  those 
members  of  the  Episcopal  Church  who  make  high  and  exclusive 
claims  in  favour  of  their  own  sect  ;  who  maintain  confidently  that 
the  power  of  ordination  to  the  gospel  ministry  is  confined  to  pre- 
latical  bishops  ;  that  ministers  not  ordained  by  them  have  no  valid 
commission,  and  of  course  no  right  to  administer  gospel  ordi- 
nances; and  that,  out  of  the  Episcopal  denomination,  there  can  be 
no  lawful  ministers ;  no  valid  sacraments ;  in  fact,  no  church,  but 
all  out  of  the  appointed  way  of  salvation,  and  given  over  to  the 
*'  uncovenanted  mercy"  of  God.  That  this  doctrine  is  really  held 
by  considerable  numbers,  both  of  the  clergy  and  laity  of  that 
denomination,  will  appear  from  the  following  distinct  avowal,  found 
in  a  manual  extensively  used  and  admired  among  American  Epis- 
copalians. 

"  The  Judge  of  all  the  earth  will  indeed  do  right.  The  grace  of  God  quickens 
and  animates  all  the  degenerate  children  of  Adam.  The  mercy  of  the  Saviour 
is  co-extensive  with  the  ruin  into  which  sin  Jias  plunged  mankind.  And, 'in 
every  nation,  he  that  feareth  God,  and  vvorketh  righteousness,  is  accepted  of 
him.'  But  where  the  gospel  is  proclaimed,  communion  with  the  Church  by  the 
participation  of  its  ordinances,  at  the  hands  of  its  duly  authorized  priesthood,  is 
the  indispensable  condition  of  salvation.  Separation  from  the  prescribed  govern- 
ment, and  regular  priesthood  of  the  Church,  when  it  proceeds  from  involuntary 
and  unavoidable  ignorance  or  error,  we  have  reason  to  trust,  will  not  intercept 
from  the  humble,  the  penitent  and  obedient,  the  blessings  of  God's  favour.  But 
when  we  humbly  submit  to  that  priesthood  which  Christ  and  his  apostles  consti- 
tuted ;  when,  in  the  lively  exercise  of  penitence  and  faith,  we  partake  of  the  ordi- 
nances administered  by  them,  we  maintain  our  communion  with  that  Church 
which  the  Redeemer  purifies  by  his  blood,  which  he  quickens  by  his  Spirit,  and 
whose  faithful  members  he  will  finally  crown  with  the  most  exalted  glories  of  his 
heavenly  kingdom.  The  important  truth  which  the  universal  Church  has  uni- 
formly maintained,  thai,  to  experience  the  full  and  exalted  etficacy  of  the  sacra- 
ments, we  must  receive  them  from  a  valid  authority,  is  not  inconsistent  with  that 
charity  which  extends  mercy  to  all  who  labour  under  involuntary  error.  But 
great  is  the  guilt  and  imminent  the  danger  of  those  who,  professing  the  means  of 


CHRISTIAN    UNION.  249 

arriving  at  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  negligently  or  wilfully  continue  in  a  state 
of  separation  from  the  authorized  ministry  of  the  Church,  and  partake  of  ordi- 
nances administered  by  an  irregular  and  invalid  authority.  Wilfully  rending  the 
peace  and  unity  of  the  Church,  by  separating  from  the  ministrations  of  its  author- 
ized priesthood ;  obstinately  contemning  the  means  which  God,  in  his  sovereign 
pleasure,  hath  prescribed  for  their  salvation,  they  are  guilty  of  rebellion  against 
their  Almighty  Lawgiver  and  Judge  ;  they  expose  themselves  to  the  awful  dis- 
pleasure of  that  Almighty  Jehovah,  who  will  not  permit  his  institutions  to  be  con- 
temned, or  his  authority  violated  with  impunity."* 

In  plain  English,  the  scope  of  these  and  similar  passages  in 
writings  of  acknowledged  authority  in  that  denomination,  is,  that 
the  Episcopal  "  priesthood"  is  the  only  authorized  ministry — 
that  their  sacraments  are  the  only  valid  sacraments — that  those 
who  are  out  of  the  Episcopal  body  are  no  part  of  the  Christian 
Church  ;  that  they  have  no  hope  founded  on  "  covenanted  mercy  ;" 
but  however  penitent,  humble,  and  deeply  spiritual  they  may  be, 
the  fact  that  they  are  not  in  communion  with  the  Episcopal 
Church,  proves  that  they  are  "  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of 
Israel,  and  strangers  to  the  covenant  of  promise." 

In  full  accordance  with  this  representation,  Mr.  Grant,  the  Epis- 
copal high-church  historian  of  England,  does  not  scruple  to  avow 
the  doctrine  which  has  been  stated,  in  all  its  length  and  breadth. 
"  This  opinion,"  says  he,  "  supposes  a  charm^  a  secret  virtue,  by 
which — to  state  an  extreme  case — a  vicious  minister  of  the  Church 
of  England  can  confer  something  necessary  to  salvation,  as  a  sacra- 
ment is  ;  while  the  same  office  performed  by  a  pious  sectary,  who 
has  in  his  heart  devoted  himself  to  God,  is  an  absolute  nullity" 
After  stating  the  case  in  this  strong  and  unequivocal  manner,  he 
does  not  hesitate  to  declare  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  fact  is  really 
so.  "  Truth  is  sacred  and  immutable,"  says  he,  *'  and  must  be 
received,  whatever  inconvenience  may  attend  its  reception."t 

There  are,  indeed,  some  high-churchmen  whose  mode  of  stating 
their  opinions  in  reference  to  this  subject,  is  somewhat  less  offen- 
sive in  terms.  They  do  not  undertake  decisively  to  exclude  all 
others  but  themselves  and  the  Romanists  from  the  "  covenanted 
mercies  of  God  ;"  but  they  refuse  to  acknowledge  any  others. 
Their  language  is,  "  we  know  that  we  are  right,  and  on  safe 
ground  ;  but  we  do  not  know  that  others  are.  We  do  not  posi- 
tively deny  that  they  are  true  churches ;  but  we  cannot  see  our 
way  clear  to  recognise  them  as  such."  There  is  still  a  third  por- 
tion of  the  general  class  of  high- churchmen,  who,  maintaining  the 
Popish  doctrine  that  lay-baptism  is  valid,  and  that  any  body  of 
baptized  persons  may  properly  be  called  a  church,  do  not  deny  the 
title  of  churches  to  Presbyterian  assemblies.  But  while  they  con- 
cede this — on  most  erroneous  ground  as  we  suppose — they  deny 

♦  Companion  for  the  Altar,  by  J.  H.  Hobart,  afterwards  Bishop  Hobart,  1S04,  p. 
202-204.  ^  »  'f 

t  Grant's  History  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  Sects  dissenting  from  her. 
Vol.  ii.,  7,  8. 


250  CHRISTIAN   UNION. 

that  these  churches  have  any  authorized  ministers^  and  contend 
that  all  the  claims  and  acts  of  such  ministers  are  usurpation  and 
rebellion. 

These  are  the  opinions  to  which  popular  parlance  has  assigned 
the  title  of  high-church.  The  title  is  just.  They  are  not  only 
revolting,  but  really  schismatic  in  their  character.  We  do  not 
pretend  to  know  how  extensively  such  opinions  are  cherished  by 
the  ministers  and  members  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States.  We  have  no  doubt  that  many  of  the  best  of  both  cor- 
dially reject  them,  and  cultivate  towards  other  churches  a  fraternal 
spirit.  Nor  do  we  intend  at  present  to  enter  into  an  inquiry 
whether  these  revolting  opinions  are  correct  or  not.  We,  of 
course,  believe  them  to  be  both  absurd  and  unscriptural.  But  that 
is  not,  at  present,  the  question.  The  question  is,  can  it  be  consi- 
dered as  congruous  for  a  man  who  holds  these  opinions  to  talk  or 
think  of  promoting  "  Christian  union  ;"  of  holding  out  the  olive 
branch,  in  any  intelligible  sense,  to  other  denominations,  when  he 
regards  them  all  as  out  of  the  way  of  salvation?  Now  we 
happen  to  know  that  Bishop  Smith  freely  states  it  as  his  opinion, 
that  non-episcopal  ministers  have  no  commission ;  no  authority 
whatever  to  administer  gospel  ordinances.  His  plan  of  union, 
then,  is,  that  all  other  denominations  are  at  liberty,  if  they  please, 
to  turn  Episcopalians  ;  and  that,  if  they  do,  he  will  then,  and  not 
till  then,  regard  them  favourably,  and  acknowledge  them  as  Chris- 
tians. This  is  surely  a  wonderful  sacrifice  at  the  shrine  of 
"  Christian  union  !"  The  Papist  could  say  this  ;  and  he  could  say 
no  more. 

2.  Our  second  remark  is,  that  Bishop  Smith's  views  of  "  Chris- 
tian union"  are  such  that  he  is  constrained  to  regret  that  the  reform- 
ers ever  separated  from  the  Church  of  Rome.  He  is  such  a  wor- 
shipper of  the  form  of  ecclesiastical  communion,  without  its 
power,  that  he  seriously  asks,  "  whether  one  of  the  grand  mistakes 
of  the  Reformation  was  not  a  separation  from  the  Church,  instead 
of  reformation  in  the  Church  ?"  As  if  effort  after  effort  to  reform 
the  Church,  without  going  out  of  it,  had  not  been  actually  made 
by  one  noble-minded  man  after  another,  for  nearly  two  hundred 
years  before  that  time,  without  success.  As  if  hundreds  of  men, 
some  of  them  among  the  best  on  earth,  had  not  been  hurried  to  the 
stake,  for  daring  to  whisper  a  doubt  concerning  the  pure  and  scrip- 
tural character  of  the  dominant  Church.  As  if  most  of  the  Reform- 
ers had  not  been  violently  cast  out  of  the  Church,  instead  of  first 
departing  themselves.  Nay,  as  if  when  Christ  the  Lord  had  been 
virtually  taken  away  from  the  Headship  of  his  Church,  there  was 
any  scriptural  object  to  be  gained  by  continued  "  union"  with  such 
a  body.  We  have  no  doubt  that  Bishop  Smith  in  the  multitude  of 
his  yearnings  towards  what  appears  to  be  his  idol — the  Episcopal 
succession — wishes  there  never  had  been  a  severance  of  connexion 
with  the  Church  of  Rome.  He  feels  probably  a  little  as  Arch- 
bishop Laud  did,  when  he  said,  "  I  do  believe  the  Church  of  Rome 


CHRISTIAN    UNION.  251 

to  be  a  true  Church.  Were  she  not  a  true  Church,  it  were  hard 
with  the  Church  of  England,  since  from  her  the  English  bishops 
derive  their  apostolic  succession."  For  our  part  we  think  the 
Reformers  did  wisely  in  "  coming  out  from  among  the  Romanists 
and  being  separate."  We  cannot  doubt  that  in  abandoning  the 
habitations  of  gross  superstition  and  idolatry,  they  took  the  only 
feasible  course.  Necessity  impelled  them  to  it.  Duty  required  it. 
The  Church  of  Rome,  not  the  Reformers,  was  the  real  schismatic, 
since  she  required  the  friends  of  the  reformation  to  obey  man  rather 
than  God,  or  go  to  the  stake  or  gibbet,  or  go  out  from  her  pale. 
In  this  case  we  may  say  of  "  union"  as  our  blessed  Lord  does  of 
the  holy  Sabbath :  Union  was  made  for  man,  not  man  for  union. 
It  ought  to  be  sacredly  and  inviolably  maintained  as  long  as  it  can 
be  made  subservient  to  the  great  purpose  for  which  it  was  appointed  ; 
mutual  edification  in  faith  and  holiness.  But  when  it  becomes  an 
alliance  to  corruption,  idolatry  and  misery,  it  has  lost  both  its  pur- 
pose and  its  value.  It  is,  undoubtedly,  a  sin  to  sacrifice  everything 
to  the  name  when  the  substance  is  gone. 

3.  Our  third  remark  on  Bishop  Smith's  Review  is,  that  he  seems 
to  hold  a  doctrine  in  regard  to  the  essential  nature  of  the  "  union" 
for  which  he  pleads,  in  which  we  can  by  no  means  concur  with 
him.  "  What  sort  of  union"  he  asks,  "  amongst  the  followers  of 
Christ  should  be  proposed  ?  Shall  they  be  called  upon  to  unite  in 
some  way  or  other,  as  they  now  stand  divided ;  or  are  they  bound 
to  agree  in  one  outward  form  of  Christianity  ?  Mr.  Van  Dyck, 
and  multitudes  with  him,  appear  to  entertain  no  other  idea  of  union 
amongst  Christians,  than  an  agreement  that  they  shall  not  bite  and 
devour  one  another.  For  our  part  we  most  explicitly  avow  our 
conviction,  that  every  attempt  to  put  a  stop  to  the  dissensions  and 
subdivisions  which  distract  the  Church,  must  for  ever  prove  futile, 
until  Christians  are  agreed  in  one  outward  form  of  Christianity. 
To  talk  about  union  in  feeling  and  spirit,  whilst  there  is  disunion  in 
fact,  is  about  as  wise  as  to  exhort  those  to  love  one  another,  between 
whom  occasion  of  deadly  feud  actually  exists." 

We  acknowledge  that  we  do  not  take  exactly  this  view  of  the 
subject.  Conscientious  and  firm  as  our  persuasion  is,  that  the  Pres- 
byterian form  of  government  and  of  worship  was  the  form  actually 
adopted  in  the  apostolic  Church,  and  which  ought  to  be  the  univer- 
sal form  ;  yet  we  are  very  far  from  thinking  the  adoption  of  this 
form,  or  of  any  other  single  form,  by  the  different  existing  denomi- 
nations, essential  to  Christian  union  in  its  best  sense.  We  think 
"  THE  unity  of  the  spirit"  the  most  important  part  of  this  whole  mat- 
ter. We  confess,  indeed,  that  we  love  to  see  qnion  among  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ  complete  in  all  its  parts,  external  as  well  as  inter- 
nal. We  love  to  find  large  communities  of  Christians  all  "  speaking 
the  same  thing,"  and  walking  by  the  same  rule  and  order.  But  we 
cannot  doubt  that  there  may  be  much  love,  much  of  the  real  precious 
communion  of  saints,  where  there  is  considerable  diversity  of  exter- 
nal order.     We   are  perfectly  persuaded  that  there  was  more 


252  CHRISTIAN   UNION. 

scriptural,  practical  "  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace," 
between  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Presbyterian  Churches  of 
France,  Holland,  Germany,  Geneva,  and  Switzerland,  in  the  days 
of  Bucer,  Martyr,  Bullinger,  Calvin,  Cranmer,  &c.,  than  there  is 
at  this  hour  between  the  different  portions  of  the  English  establish- 
ment. What  pious  Presbyterian  would  find  the  least  difficulty  in 
cherishing  the  most  delightful  Christian  fellowship  with  such  men 
as.  the  late  Mr.  John  Newton,  Dr.  Scott,  and  other  similar  worthies 
of  the  Church  of  England  ?  He  would  certainly  take  more  plea- 
sure in  the  conversation  and  ministry  of  such  men,  than  in  those  of 
some  men  belonging  to  his  own  nominal  communion,  of  less  zeal 
and  spirituality.  We  do,  indeed,  anticipate  that  when  the  Mil- 
lennium shall  open  on  the  world,  there  will  be  greater  uniformity  in 
the  outward  aspect,  as  well  as  in  the  interior  of  the  Church  of  God, 
than  has  ever  yet  been  seen.  But  we  do  not  feel  quite  sure  that 
the  uniformity,  with  regard  to  external  order,  will  be  perfect  and 
universal.  However  this  may  be,  we  are  perfectly  satisfied  in 
cherishing  the  assurance  that  the  favoured  believers  of  that  age 
will  be  "  of  one  heart  and  of  one  way,"  in  love  to  the  Saviour  ;  in 
love  to  one  another ;  in  bearing  one  another's  burdens  and  infirmi- 
ties ;  and  in  seeking  to  promote  their  common  happiness,  and  to 
glorify  their  common  God.  We  do  not  believe  that  a  conflict  or 
a  thought  will  ever  arise  in  the  minds  of  the  Christians  of  that 
generation  respecting  ecclesiastical  rank  or  succession.  Let  any 
one  glance  at  the  Apocalyptic  delineations  of  that  happy  period, 
and  say  whether  a  single  stroke  of  the  pencil  of  inspiration 
appears  to  point  to  matters  of  that  kind.  The  glory  of  the 
blessed  Redeemer,  and  the  afffection  of  his  people  to  him  and  to 
one  another,  evidently  occupy  and  adorn  the  whole  picture. 

4.  Again,  Bishop  Smith  asks,  "  whether  efffacing  the  scriptural 
and  primitive  distinctions  between  clerical  and  lay  officers  in  the 
church,  has  not,  by  lessening  the  respect  for  the  sacred  order,  and 
fostering  a  spirit  of  misrule  and  insubordination,  greatly  tended  to 
the  multiplication  of  sects  ?"  Whatever  inffuence  this  thing  may 
have  had  in  affecting  either  the  peace  or  unity  of  the  Church,  we 
can  think  of  no  sect  to  which  the  query  more  strikingly  applies 
than  to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.  We 
know  of  scarcely  any  other  denomination  than  theirs,  in  the 
ecclesiastical  assemblies  of  which  laymen  are  permitted  to  sit  and 
give  votes,  which  may  be  absolutely  controlling,  without  the  least 
semblance  or  plea,  even  on  their  own  showing,  for  divine  authority 
in  the  case.  It  is  well  known  that  the  ruling  elders  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  occupy  a  place  in  all  their  ecclesiastical  assemblies. 
But  then  they  are  not,  strictly  speaking,  in  our  estimation,  laymen  ; 
that  is,  we  consider  them  as  spiritual  officers,  appointed  by  Christ 
to  bear  rule,  and  therefore  just  as  much  authorized  to  sit  and  act* 

♦It  is  well  known  that  in  the  early  Church,  soon  after  the  apostles'  da}s,  all 
church  officers,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  were  called  clergymen^  to  distinguish 
them  from  the  body  of  the  people. 


CHRISTIAN    UNION.  253 

in  the  place  assigned  to  them,  as  any  minister  in  the  whole  church. 
But  our  Episcopal  brethren,  if  we  understand  their  system,  intro- 
duce into  all  their  assemblies,  from  the  Vestry  to  the  General 
Convention,  numbers  of  mere  laymen  invested  with  high  authority, 
and  yet  in  whose  behalf  they  do  not  pretend  to  plead  any  divine 
appointment  or  institution.  We  cannot  but  think,  therefore,  that  it 
is  with  a  very  ill  grace  that  Bishop  Smith  singles  out  this  feature 
in  modern  times,  as  favourable  to  the  multiplication  of  sects,  and 
the  production  of  insubordination  and  disorder  in  the  Church.  If 
he  is  dehberately  of  this  opinion,  he  ought  to  exert  himself  to  alter, 
as  soon  as  possible,  the  constitution  of  his  own  church.  But  we 
have  no  such  apprehension  from  this  source  as  he  appears  to  enter- 
tain. We  cannot  think  of  any  prominent  sect  in  our  land  that  was 
commenced,  or  even  planned,  by  laymen.  No,  the  clergy — we 
repeat  it — the  clergy  have  been,  in  almost  all  cases,  the  disturbers 
and  corrupters  of  the  church  ;  and  we  verily  believe  that  the 
greatest  danger  is  now  to  be  apprehended  from  them.  If  the 
leaders  and  guides  of  all  denominations  were  all  deeply  imbued 
with  the  humble,  charitable,  disinterested,  and  truly  benevolent 
spirit  of  their  Master,  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  greatest  obstacle 
to  "  Christian  union"  would  be  taken  out  of  the  way. 

5.  We  have  but  one  more  remark,  or  rather  query,  to  offer  on 
the  view  which  Bishop  Smith  appears  to  take  of  the  subject. 
Assuming  that  there  can  be  no  valuable  or  eftectual  unity,  without 
a  concurrence  in  some  one  external  form  of  organization  ;  that 
this  is  not  only  important,  but  essential  ;  he  professes,  in  one 
place,  the  most  entire  indifference  "  in  what  direction  these  prin- 
ciples may  guide  him."  "  With  us,"  says  he,  "  it  would  matter 
nothing  to  which  of  the  existing  denominations  they  would  con- 
duct ;  or  what  modifications  they  would  demand  of  each."  Yet, 
he  evidently,  in  another  place,  gives  us  to  understand  what  denomi- 
nation he  thinks  ought  to  be  adopted,  and  would  be  adopted,  if 
proper  principles  presided  over  the  choice.  At  this  partiality  to 
his  own  sect,  we  are  not  surprised ;  nor  should  we  be  disposed  to 
criminate  him  for  it,  had  his  declaration  in  its  favour  been  much 
more  pointed  and  positive.  The  leading  principle  which  he  sup- 
poses ought  to  regulate  the  choice  of  this  universal  denomination 
is  that  which  he  quotes  from  Tertullian — "  whatever  is  first  is  true  ; 
whatever  is  more  recent  is  spurious."  We  accede  to  the  general 
principle  ;  and  have  no  more  doubt  that  the  most  faithful  '*  induc- 
tion" of  historical,  and  every  other  kind  of  testimony,  would  show 
that  Presbyterian  doctrine,  government  and  worship  was  "first," — 
was  the  truly  primitive  and  apostolic  form,  than  we  have  that  the 
same  "  inductive"  testimony  would  show  that  in  the  first  century 
there  were  Christian  Churches  planted  in  Jerusalem,  Antioch, 
Rome,  and  Philippi.  On  this,  however,  we  shall  not  insist.  We 
will  suppose  for  argument's  sake  that  the  Episcopal  form  of  Church 
order  were  universally  adopted  in  our  country  in  all  its  parts  ;  that 
all  the  denominations  in  the  United  States  were  prevailed  upon, 


254  CHRISTIAN   UNION. 

without  one  perverse  "  dissenter"  interposing  his  veto,  to  assume 
the  name  and  adopt  the  government  and  formularies  of  that  deno- 
mination. Suppose  this  to  be  done;  and  suppose  the  whole  body, 
when  thus  united,  to  bear  the  very  same  character,  as  to  piety, 
zeal,  humility,  and  diffusive  Christian  benevolence,  which  the  body 
actually  distinguished  by  that  denomination  now  bears.  Would 
our  country  be  the  better  for  it  ?  Would  the  interests  of  "  pure 
and  undcfiled  religion"  be  really  promoted  1  Would  a  greater 
amount  of  evangelical  labour  be  likely  to  be  accomplished  ?  W  ould 
the  poor  neglected  wanderers  '*  in  the  highways  and  hedges"  be 
more  likely  to  be  brought  in  ?  Would  the  conversion  of  the  whole 
world  to  God  be  likely  to  be  more  speedily  effected  ?  What  would 
be  its  probable  influence  on  the  civil  government  of  the  country  ; 
on  the  rights  of  conscience ;  and  on  all  the  privileges  of  the  citi- 
zens ?  Would  such  a  community,  judging  from  all  experience,  be 
wakeful,  active  and  enterprising  in  its  religious  character  ;  or  sunk 
in  the  torpor  and  formality  which  usually  characterize  those  bodies 
from  which  emulation  is  gone,  and  where  there  are  none  to  call  in 
question  the  course  pursued  ?  We  should  have  no  fear  as  to  any 
of  these  points  if  the  "  latter  day  glory"  had  begun.  The  univer- 
sal prevalence  of  true  religion  would  be  the  best  universal  con- 
servative. But  the  supposition  is,  that  all  sects  were  merged  in 
one,  and  the  whole  remaining,  in  every  other  respct,  just  as  they 
are.  Would  the  country  be  safe  under  snch  a  transformation  ? 
Would  religion  be  safe  ?  Would  the  interests  of  the  world  be 
safe  ?  We  trow  not.  If  the  denomination  in  question  were  our 
own,  we  should  say,  By  no  means. 

Bishop  Smith,  in  sketching  the  union,  which  he  seems  to  con- 
template, speaks  of  each  denomination  giving  up  something  for  the 
sake  of  harmony.  It  may  excite  a  smile  in  some  of  our  non- 
presbyterian  readers,  when  we  say,  that,  in  casting  about,  in  our 
own  minds,  what  peculiarity  Presbyterians  might  reasonably  be 
called  upon  and  feel  willing  to  surrender  as  a  tribute  to  "Christian 
union,"  we  felt  deeply  at  a  loss  to  specify  a  single  particular. 
There  is  not,  we  will  confidently  affirm,  a  denomination  of  Chris- 
tians in  the  United  States,  or  in  the  world,  more  free  from  offen- 
sive claims ;  more  ready  to  unite  with  all  other  denominations  in 
communion  or  in  effort ;  or  having  fewer  peculiarities  to  keep  us 
asunder  from  our  neighbours.  We  freely  acknowledge  the  church- 
character,  and  the  validity  of  the  ministrations  of  Congregation- 
alists,  Methodists,  Episcopalians,  Baptists,  Lutherans,  and  in  short, 
of  all  sects  who  hold  the  fundamentals  of  Christianity.  We  repel 
none  of  them  from  our  communion ;  and  in  all  our  private  and 
public  ministrations  we  insist,  almost  exclusively,  on  the  great 
duties  of  "  repentance  towards  God,  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  holiness  of  heart  and  of  life,"  in  which  all  evangelical  Protest- 
ants profess  substantially  to  agree.  Where  one  sectarian  claim  or 
statement  is  made  in  our  pulpits,  we  may  safely  venture  to  say 
that  fifty  are  made  in  the  pulpits  and  writings  of  our  Baptist,  Epis- 


CHRISTIAN    UNION.  255 

copal,  and  Methodist  brethren.  What  then,  in  the  proposed  mutual 
concession  for  the  sake  of"  union,"  shall  we  give  up?  Our  exclu- 
sive claims  ?  We  have  none.  Our  abuse  of  other  denominations  ? 
We  have  none.  We  are  everywhere  loaded  with  calumny, but  have 
never  yet  engaged  in  any  other  warfare  than  that  of  the  purest  self- 
defence.  Even  our  most  mild  and  respectful  self-defence,  we  know, 
is  made  matter  of  accusation  and  reproach  ;  but  be  it  so.  We  can- 
not surrender  this  right.  Shall  we  give  up  our  endeavours  to  main- 
tain a  learned  ministry,  which  was,  for  a  long  time,  matter  of  accu- 
sation with  more  than  one  sister  denomination  ?  We  cannot  con- 
sent to  do  this.  As  it  is,  our  ministry  has  far  too  little  learning  ;  and 
those  very  churches  which  once  reproached  us  for  our  requisitions  in 
regard  to  this  matter  are  now  adopting  similar  plans,  and  are  follow- 
ing close  at  our  heels  in  the  maintenance  of  the  same  system.  Shall 
we  consent,  for  the  sake  of  universal  ecclesiastical  amalgamation, 
to  give  up  all  our  rules  and  efforts  for  maintaining  purity  of 
doctrine  ?  Here  again  we  must  demur.  We  contend  only  for 
that  precious  system  of  grace  and  truth,  which  all  the  leading 
Reformers,  both  in  Great  Britain  and  on  the  continent  of  Europe, 
uniformly  maintained.  In  struggling  to  defend  and  propagate  the 
pure  doctrines  set  forth  in  our  venerated  Confession,  we  contend 
for  no  new  or  doubtful  theories.  We  contend  for  the  same  system 
of  doctrine  which  was  taught  by  the  Cranmers,  the  Hoopers,  the 
Latimers,  and  the  Whitgifts,  as  well  as  the  Luthers,  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  and  for  which  several  of  them  laid  down  their 
lives.  We  believe  that,  important  as  the  government  of  the  Church 
may  and  ought  to  be  considered,  the  maintenance  of  pure  gospel 
truth  is  a  thousand-fold  more  important  ;  and  that  to  compromise 
its  interests  out  of  regard  to  any  question  of  ecclesiastical  order, 
would  be  a  high  offence  against  our  Master  in  heaven,  and  against 
all  the  interests  of  his  kingdom. 

We  think  we  do  no  injustice  to  any  other  portion  of  Protestant 
Christendom,  when  we  say,  that  we  are  confident  no  denomination 
of  Christians  exceeds  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  genuine  Christian 
liberality,  and  in  a  readiness  to  unite  in  Christian  effort  with  all 
classes  of  credible  professors  of  Christianity.  Our  system  is  abso- 
lutely less  exclusive,  and  more  pacific  than  any  other  in  our 
country,  which  admits  the  importance  of  truth  at  all.  We  are 
really  almost  the  only  denomination  of  Christians  in  the  United 
States  whose  views  of  truth  of  the  Gospel  ministry,  and  of  eccle- 
siastical order,  present  no  obstacle  to  our  communing  and  co- 
operating with  any  and  every  denomination  who  hold  fast  the 
essentials  of  true  religion.  Nor  can  we  hesitate  to  assert  that 
the  most  conspicuous  and  edifying  examples  of  such  union  and 
co-operation,  within  the  last  twenty  years,  have  been  actually 
presented  by  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Why,  then,  it  is,  that  we 
are  everywhere  calumniated  as  eminently  sectarian  in  our  cha- 
racter ;  why  the  most  mild  and  respectful  attempts  to  defend  our 
own  opinions,  and  to  show  to  our  members  our  reasons  for  differing 


256  CHRISTIAN    UNION. 

from  sister  denominations  around  us,  are  stigmatized  as  violent  and 
unprovoked  attacks  ;  and  why  these  charges  happen  to  be  most 
clamorously  urged  by  those  of  our  neighbours  whose  seclarism  is 
acknowledged  on  all  hands  to  be  the  most  rampant  and  exclusive 
in  the  land  ;  are  questions,  the  responsibility  of  answering  which, 
we  are  glad  does  not  lie  at  our  door. 

We  agree  with  Bishop  Smith  in  the  opinion  that  the  spirit  of 
sect  is  more  rife  and  more  powerful  at  this  time  than  it  was  some 
years  ago.  VVe  think  this  has  grown  out  of  some  of  the  very 
measures  prematurely  and  unwisely  adopted  to  produce  the  diame- 
trically opposite  etfect.  And  we  are  persuaded  that  much  that  is 
now  written  and  done,  with  the  intention  of  promoting  union,  is 
adapted  to  retard,  rather  than  promote,  the  great  object  recom- 
mended in  the  volume  before  us.  We  lament  that  such  should  be 
the  case,  but  we  cannot  close  our  eyes  against  the  fact.  Were  we 
to  attempt  to  offer  a  set  of  counsels  as  to  the  best  means  of  pro- 
moting "  Christian  union" — we  should  say — "  Be  much  more 
engaged  in  cherishing  a  spirit  of  charity  and  concord,  than  in 
urging  different  denominations  to  come  together.  Let  the  strain  of 
preaching  be  practical,  affectionate,  and  strictly  scriptural,  rather 
than  controversial.  Be  more  intent  on  describing  and  inculcating 
the  reli2:ion  of  the  heart,  than  on  pleading  the  cause  of  a  particular 
form  of  external  organization  and  order.  Let  each  denomination 
maintain  its  own  peculiar  opinions  with  regard  to  doctrine  and 
discipline,  meekly  and  candidly,  but  with  firmness,  without  com- 
promilting  a  single  dictate  of  conscience.  Study  to  cultivate  inter- 
course with  other  denominations,  to  converse  and  pray  together, 
and  co-operate  in  every  pious  and  benevolent  enterprise,  as  far  as 
may  not  be  forbidden  by  conscientious  peculiarities.  Be  very  sure 
that  what  is  made  a  term  of  communion  be  something  distinctly 
and  clearly  taught  in  the  word  of  God.  Let  none  imagine  that  the 
"Christian  union,"  so  much  sought  after,  and  so  truly  desirable, 
can  be  reached  at  once,  or  by  rapid  movements  ;  it  must  be  the 
work  of  time,  and  brought  about  by  gentle  means ;  just  as  the 
gradual  change  of  a  nation's  character  or  language  is  effected  by 
almost  insensible  degrees.  And,  in  the  meanwhile,  it  is  not  wise 
to  be  for  ever  harping  on  the  duty  of  "  union."  All  the  world 
knows  that  if  we  wish  to  produce  in  any  mind  strong  emotions, 
either  of  love  or  hatred,  the  true  way  to  succeed  is  not  to  employ 
our  time  in  directly  exhorting  to  the  exercise  of  this  emotion  ;  but 
in  presenting  such  views  of  the  object  in  question,  as  are 
adapted  favourably  to  excite  and  impress.  No  one  was  ever 
induced  to  love  an  object  by  being  scolded  and  reproached  for 
not  loving  it.  And  they  are  surely  the  worst  enemies  to  "  Chris- 
tian union,"  who,  while  they  declaim  against  sectarism,  and 
paint  in  strong  colours  the  sin  and  mischief  of  multiplied  reli- 
gious denominations,  are  constantly  "  compassing  sea  and  land" 
to  make  proselytes  to  their  own  sect,  and  representing  all  others  as 
"  aliens  from  the  covenant  of  God." 


CHRISTIAN   UNION.  25T 

That  our  views  in  relation  to  this  interesting  subject  may  not  be 
misapprehended,  we  will  close  our  protracted  remarks  by  the  fol- 
lowing brief  summary  of  the  conclusions  in  relation  to  it,  to  which 
we  have  come,  and  which  we  regard  as  most  scriptural,  rational 
and  safe. 

1.  All  who  profess  the  true  religion  in  its  essential  characteristics, 
belong  to  the  visible  Church  catholic,  notwithstanding  the  diversity 
of  forms  and  names  by  which  they  are  externally  separated ;  and 
ought  to  be  so  regarded  by  all  who  believe  that  Christ  is  one,  and 
his  religion  one.     Of  course, 

2.  Entire  concurrence  in  the  same  outward  form  of  Christianity 
is  not  essential  to  Christian  union,  or  to  the  real  communion  of 
saints. 

3.  Yet  everything  that  tends  to  divide  the  body  of  Christ,  or  to 
interfere  with  entire  harmony  among  the  members  of  his  body,  is 
sinful  and  ought  to  be  avoided. 

4.  The  day  is  coming,  and  is  probably  not  far  distant,  when  all 
the  professing  people  of  God  will  be  so  united,  if  not  in  every  point 
of  external  form,  yet  in  spirit,  in  cordial  affection,  as  to  feel  that 
they  are  "  one  body  in  Christ,  and  every  one  members  one  of 
another." 

5.  The  mere  quiet,  formal  coalition  of  all  sects  into  one  body, 
and  under  one  name,  would  not  be  "  Christian  union." 

6.  We  cannot  look  for  the  consummation  of  this  desirable  out- 
ward union,  nor  even  reasonably  wish  it  to  take  place,  unless  and 
until  the  spirit  of  sectarism  shall  be  previously  slain,  and  the  spirit 
of  universal  charity  shall  become  triumphant  in  every  part  of  the 
Church.  Were  the  union  contemplated  to  come  before  the  esta- 
blishment of  this,  it  could  not  live,  much  less  diffuse  its  appropri- 
ate blessings.     Therefore, 

7.  All  attempts  to  break  down  the  barriers  which  now  divide 
professing  Christians  into  different  denominations,  anterior  to  the 
pouring  out  upon  them  the  spirit  of  love,  will  be  of  little  or  no 
efficacy  in  promoting  the  great  object  contemplated  ;  perhaps  may 
even  retard  its  approach.  A  community  of  goods  once  existed  in 
the  Christian  Church,  and  may  possibly  exist  again,  when  the 
spirit  of  pure  and  fervent  love  shall  pervade  the  Church ;  but  if  a 
proposal  were  made  to  restore  that  community  now,  when  the  pre- 
vailing spirit  of  Christendom  is  so  remote  from  it,  it  would  be  con- 
sidered as  doing  discredit,  rather  than  honour,  to  the  cause  and 
the  proposer. 

8.  Those  denominations  of  Christians  which  stand  aloof  from 
other  Christian  Churches,  or  which  refuse,  on  grounds  not  sup- 
ported by  the  word  of  God,  to  commune  with  them,  are  chargeable 
with  schism.  The  dominant  powers  in  the  Church  of  England,  in 
ejecting  two  thousand  of  the  very  best  ministers  of  that  Church  in 
1662,  because  they  refused  to  conform  to  unscriptural  ceremonies, 
were  the  real  schismatics,  and  not  the  ejected  ministers  themselves. 
Mr.  Locke  pronounces  that  event  "  fatal  to  the  Church  and  religion 

17 


25S  CHRISTIAN  UNION. 

of  England,  in  throwing  out  a  very  great  number  of  worthy, 
learned,  pious  and  orthodox  divines."** 

9.  The  volume  before  us  has  appeared  a  number  of  years  too 
soon  for  the  prompt  adoption  of  its  principles.  We  are  not  yet 
prepared  for  the  "  abolition  of  sects."  When  this  precious  bless- 
ing shall  be  vouchsafed  to  the  Church,  we  have  no  expectation  that 
it  will  be  brought  about  by  some  great  man,  by  discovering  the 
causes  of  the  opposite  evil,  and  proposing  some  new  and  wonder- 
ful remedy.  It  will  be  the  result  of  the  same  power,  which,  when 
the  disciples  were  tossed  on  the  heaving  sea,  and  filled  with  fear, 
said  to  the  raging  winds  and  waves,  "  Peace,  be  still ;"  and  there 
was  a  great  calm.  There  will  probably,  however,  be  no  miracle 
in  the  common  sense  of  that  word  ;  but  the  same  gracious  agency 
which  blesses  the  Church  now,  given  in  a  much  larger  measure. 
Before  the  Christian  community  can  be  ready  for  a  movement  of  this 
kind,  the  Holy  Spirit  of  sanctification  and  love  must  be  poured  out 
upon  churches  to  an  extent,  and  with  a  power,  hitherto  unknown 
since  the  day  of  Pentecost.  The  spirit  of  those  who  are  constantly 
"  scrambling  for  proselytes ;"  who  are  far  more  anxious  to  convert 
men  to  their  own  denomination,  than  to  the  knowledge  and  love  of 
holiness ;  and  especially  the  spirit  of  those  who  "  hate  the  gos- 
pel, while  they  love  the  church,"  must  be  brought  to  yield  to  the 
genuine  spirit  of  Christian  charity.  The  miseries  of  a  perishing 
world  must  bear  with  a  hundred-fold  more  weight  than  they  now 
do  on  the  hearts  of  Christians ;  and  they  must  feel,  with  a  force 
and  tenderness  of  which  they  at  present  know  little,  their  supreme 
obligation  to  send  the  simple,  pure  gospel  to  every  creature. 
They  must  be  absorbed  in  the  great  work  of  converting  the  world 
to  God.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  will  sectarism  gradually  expire. 
Then,  and  not  till  then,  will  the  exclamation  of  the  early  ages  be 
renewed,  "  behold  how  these  Christians  love  one  another  !" 
The  Lord  hasten  in  his  time  a  consummation  so  devoutly  to  be 
wished  !     Every  Christian  heart  will  say — Amen  ! 

*  Letter  from  a  Person  of  Quality.    Works,  vol.  ix.,  p.  202. 


ESSAY    IX. 

THE  DIVISION   OF   THE   PRESBYTERIAN 
CHURCH* 


The  measures  adopted  by  the  last  General  Assembly  have  now 
been  the  subject  of  constant  discussion  for  more  than  nine  months. 
The  press  has  teemed  with  arguments  both  for  and  against  their 
validity  and  justice.  Almost  all  our  inferior  judicatories  have 
subjected  them  to  a  rigid  examination,  and  pronounced  an  opinion 
either  in  their  justification  or  condemnation.  It  may  therefore  be 
taken  for  granted,  that  the  minds  of  all  interested  in  the  matter 
are  by  this  time  finally  settled  on  the  one  side  or  the  other.  We 
are  not  about  to  re-open  the  subject,  or  to  traverse  anew  the 
ground  passed  over  in  our  number  for  July  last.  Since  that  time, 
however,  events  have  occurred  which  have  an  important  bearing 
on  the  prosJ)ects  of  our  church  and  the  duty  of  its  members.  To 
some  of  these  it  is  our  purpose  to  call  the  attention  of  our  readers. 

It  must  constantly  be  borne  in  mind  that  according  to  the  repeated 
declaration  of  the  General  Assembly,  the  object  of  the  acts  com- 
plained of,  was  the  separation  of  Congregationalism  from  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  For  this  purpose  they  abrogated  the  Plan  of 
Union,  and  declared  that  no  judicatory  composed,  agreeably  to 
that  plan,  partly  of  Congregationalisls  and  partly  of  Presbyterians, 
can  have  a  constitutional  standing  in  the  Presbyterian  church.  As 
Congregationalism  was  known  to  prevail  extensively  in  four  of  our 
synods,  the  Assembly  applied  the  above  principle  to  them,  and 
declared  that  they  could  not,  as  at  present  organized,  be  any  longer 
regarded  as  belonging  to  our  church.  Several  other  synods,  within 
"whose  bounds  there  was  more  or  less  of  this  irregularity,  were 
directed  to  correct  the  evil  as  far  as  it  was  found  to  exist,  so  that 
all  the  churches  connected  with  the  General  Assembly  should  be 

•  Originally  published  in  1838,  in  review  of  the  following  works  :  1,  "  Facts  and 
Observations  concerning  the  organization  and  state  of  the  Churches  in  the  three 
Synods  of  Western  New  York,  and  the  Synod  of  the  Western  Reserve."  By  James 
Wood. 

2.  "Legal  Opinions  respecting  the  Validity  of  certain  Acts  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church."    By  Messrs.  Wood,  Hopkins,  and  Kent 


260  THE    DITISION    OF 

organized  agreeably  to  the  provisions  of  the  constitution.  Such 
ministers  and  churches,  within  the  bounds  of  the  excluded  synods, 
as  were  strictly  Presbyterian  in  doctrine  and  order,  and  should 
wish  to  unite  themselves  with  our  church,  were  directed  to  apply 
to  those  presbyteries  most  convenient  to  their  respective  locations. 
And  in  case  there  were  any  regular  presbyteries  thus  situated,  they 
were  directed  to  make  application  to  the  next  General  Assembly.* 
It  is  obvious  that  there  were  three  courses  open  to  those  affected 
by  these  measures.  The  first  was  to  submit  to  them.  This 
course  was  adopted  by  the  synod  of  New  Jersey.  In  obedience 
to  the  requisition  of  the  General  Assembly,  they  directed 
the  only  presbytery  within  their  bounds  embracing  Congrega- 
tional churches  "  to  take  order  as  soon  as  it  can  conveniently  be 
done,  to  bring  all  churches  within  its  bounds  to  an  entire  con- 
formity with  our  standards,  and  to  inform  such  churches  that  they 
can  retain  their  present  connexion  with  the  presbytery  on  no  other 
terms."  "  In  giving,"  it  is  said,  "  the  foregoing  direction  to  the 
presbytery  of  Montrose,  the  synod  have  no  desire  to  interfere  with 
the  friendly  relations  hitherto  existing  between  the  presbytery  and 
the  Congregational  churches  under  its  care,  further  than  to 
separate  them  from  their  present  connexion,  so  that  they  shall  not 
be  considered  a  constituent  part  of  the  said  presbytery,  nor  be 
entitled  to  a  vote  or  representation  in  it."  These  resolutions  were, 
as  we  understand,  adopted  unanimously ;  having  received  the 
support  of  some  of  those  who,  on  the  floor  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, had  been  most  prominent  and  zealous  in  resisting  the  abroga- 
tion of  the  Plan  of  Union.  The  same  course  was  open  to  the 
four  excluded  synods.  By  separating  themselves  from  their 
Congregational  and  accommodation  churches,  they  could,  in 
obedience  to  the  General  Assembly,  apply  either  as  individual 
churches  or  ministers  to  the  most  convenient  presbytery ;  or  as 
presbyteries  to  the  next  General  Assembly. 

*  That  this  is  a  fair  exhibition  of  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Assembly  is  plain 
from  their  own  declarations.  The  Plan  of  Union  is  declared  to  be  "  an  unconstitu- 
tional act,"  and  as  such  it  was  abrogated.  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  ^\i.  421. 
Secondly,  it  was  resolved,  "  That  by  the  operation  of  the  abrogation  of  the  Plan  of 
Union  of  I  SOI,  the  synod  of  the  Western  Reserve  is,  and  is  hereby  declared  to  be,  no 
longer  a  part  of  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America."  Thirdly,  it 
was  resolved  that  in  consequence  of  the  abrogation  of  the  Plan  of  Union,  the  syn(xis 
of  Utica,  Geneva,  and  Genesee,  "  are,  and  are  hereby  declared  to  be,  out  of  the 
ecclesiastical  connexion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  of  America." 
Minutes,  p.  444.  Fourthly,  the  synods  of  Albany,  New  Jersey,  and  Illinois,  are 
enjoined  to  correct  the  "irregularities  in  church  order  charged  upon  their  presby- 
teries at\d  churches."  Min.,  p.  497.  In  answer  to  the  Protest  of  the  commissioners 
from  the  presbyteries  belonging  to  the  synod  of  the  Western  Reserve,  the  Assembly 
say  :  the  Assembly  of  ISO]  '♦  had  no  authority  from  the  constitution  to  admit  officers 
from  any  other  denomination  of  Christians  to  sit  and  act  in  our  judicatories;  and 
therefore  no  presbytery  or  synod  thus  constituted  is  recognised  by  the  constitution 
of  our  church,  and  no  subsequent  General  Assembly  is  bound  to  recognise  them." 
«'  The  representatives  of  these  churches,  on  the  accommodation  plan,  form  a  consti- 
tuent part  of  these  presbyteries  as  really  as  the  pastors  or  elders,  and  this  Assembly 
can  recognise  no  presbytery  thus  constituted,  as  belonging  to  the  Presbyterian  church. 
The  Assembly  has  extended  the  operation  of  the  same  principle  to  other  synods 
which  they  find  similarly  constituted."  Min.^  451. 


THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  261 

This  course  would  indeed  require  submission  to  measures  which 
these  brethren  regarded  as  unkind  and  even  unjust ;  and  might  for 
a  time  have  occasioned  many  inconveniences.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  it  cannot  long  be  regarded  either  as  an  injustice  or  hardship, 
that  the  General  Assembly  should  require  that  all  churches  entitled 
to  representation  in  our  judicatories,  and  to  participation  in  our 
government,  should  conform  to  the  constitution  which  they  admi- 
nister. It  was  submitted  to  the  option  of  all  the  presbyteries 
within  these  synods  either  to  separate  from  Congregationalism  or 
from  the  General  Assembly.  If  they  refused  to  do  the  former, 
they  cannot  long  expect  the  sympathy  of  the  public,  should  they  be 
shut  up  to  the  other  alternative. 

The  second  course  open  to  these  synods,  and  to  those  who  side 
with  them,  was  to  act  upon  the  conviction  which  they  avowed 
on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  that  the  time  had  come  for  an  amica- 
ble division  of  the  church.  It  will  be  recollected  that  a  committee 
of  ten,  five  from  the  majority  and  five  from  the  minority,  was 
appointed  to  effect  this  object.  The  committee  agreed  as  to  its 
expediency,  under  existing  circumstances,  and  differed  only  as  to 
the  mode,  not  the  terms  of  separation.  The  one  party  wished  it  to 
be  made  immediately  by  the  Assembly,  the  other  to  have  it  referred 
to  the  presbyteries.  By  acting  upon  their  own  plan,  and  requesting 
those  presbyteries  which  agreed  with  them  to  appoint  commis- 
sioners to  meet  and  organize  as  the  "  General  Assembly  of  the 
American  Presbyterian  Church,"  the  division  would  have  been 
effected  in  their  own  way.  In  this  manner  all  contention  might 
have  been  avoided,  and  all  questions  been  amicably  adjusted 
between  the  two  bodies. 

The  third  method  was  to  assume  that  the  acts  in  question 
were  illegal  and  void,  and  to  determine  to  proceed  as  though  they 
had  never  been  passed.  This  is  the  course  which  has  been  adopted ; 
whether  wisely  or  unwisely  it  is  not  for  us  to  say.  Without 
presuming  to  question  either  the  motives  or  the  wisdom  of  those 
who  have  advised  this  course,  it  may  not  be  out  of  place  to 
examine  its  probable  results,  and  the  correctness  of  some  of  the 
assumptions  on  which  it  is  publicly  defended. 

Soon  after  the  rising  of  the  last  Assembly,  the  presbyteries 
particularly  interested  were  called  together,  and  in  most  instances, 
resolved  that  they  would  retain  their  present  organization;  that 
they  considered  the  Plan  of  Union  a  sacred  compact,  and  therefore 
could  not  consent  to  the  dissolution  of  the  connexion  between  them 
and  the  Congregational  churches  under  their  care  ;  that  they  would, 
as  usual,  commission  delegates  to  the  next  General  Assembly,  and 
instruct  them  to  demand  their  seats  in  that  body.  As  far  as  we  know, 
not  a  single  presbytery  within  the  four  synods  has  consented  to 
withdraw  from  their  Congregational  churches.  Not  satisfied  with 
this  separate  action  of  the  presbyteries,  delegates  were  appointed 
who  met  in  convention  at  Auburn,  August  17,  1837,  and  resolved 
unanimously,  that  the  acts  of  the  General  Assembly,  disowning  the 


^m 


THE    DIVISION    OP 


four  synods,  "  are  null  and  void ;"  they  declared  that  they  consider 
the  rights  accruing  to  the  churches  from  the  Plan  of  Union  to  be 
inviolable,  that  "an  almost  immemorial  usage  and  acquiescence 
have  committed  the  original  confederated  parties  by  whom  the 
constitution  itself  was  framed  and  adopted,  to  guarantee  the  validity 
of  that  important  pact ;"  and  that  these  churches  "  cannot  nov^r  be 
dismembered  and  disfranchised."*  That  these  brethren  had  a 
perfect  right  to  take  this  course,  no  one  can  doubt.  When  it  was 
submitted  to  their  option  either  to  separate  from  their  Congrega- 
tional churches,  or  from  the  General  Assembly,  they  were  certainly 
at  liberty  to  make  their  selection.  The  question  is,  whether  their 
refusal  to  submit  to  the  abrogation  of  the  Plan  of  Union  is  consist- 
ent with  their  continued  or  renewed  connexion  with  the  Presby- 
terian church  ?  It  certainly  cannot  be  on  any  other  ground  than 
that  the  General  Assembly  had  no  authority  to  decree  that  abroga- 
tion, and  to  order  the  inferior  judicatories  to  carry  it  into  effect. 
This,  however,  is  a  position  which  we  are  persuaded  cannot  be 
maintained.  It  is  expressly  relinquished  in  the  legal  opinion  given 
by  Mr.  Wood,  and  is  virtually  renounced  in  that  of  Chancellor 
Kent.  These  brethren,  therefore,  have  their  own  lawyers  against 
them.  Besides,  there  are  comparatively  few  persons,  not  con- 
nected with  one  or  the  other  of  the  four  synods,  who  question  the 
right  of  the  Assembly  to  abolish  the  Plan  of  Union  ;  there  are  more 
who  doubt  the  propriety  of  the  act  disowning  the  synod  of  the 
Western  Reserve,  and  still  more  who  disapprove  of  that  in  relation 
to  the  three  synods  of  New  York.  These  brethren,  however,  can 
depend  on  the  co-operation  of  those  only  who  go  the  whole  length 
with  them.  They  have  selected  the  weakest,  instead  of  the 
strongest  position,  at  their  command.  To  justify  any  one  to  vote 
that  the  commissioners  from  these  synods  should  take  their  seats 
in  the  next  Assembly,  it  is  not  enough  that  he  should  disapprove  of 
the  acts  by  which  they  were  disowned,  he  must  deny  the  right  of 
the  Assembly  to  decide  that  Congregationalists  shall  no  longer  sit 
and  act  in  our  judicatories,  or  be  represented  in  our  General 
Assembly.  The  whole  controversy  is  made  to  hinge  on  this  one 
point.  The  entire  synod  of  New  Jersey  has  committed  itself  as  to 
this  matter,  by  acting  in  obedience  to  the  command  of  the  Assem- 
bly, and  requiring  the  Presbytery  of  Montrose  to  carry  the  abro- 
gation of  the  Plan  of  Union  into  effect.  Admitting  the  constitu- 
tionality and  validity  of  that  abrogation,  the  synod  could  not  expect 
the  commissioners  from  the  presbytery  of  Montrose  to  be  admitted 
to  their  seats  in  the  next  Assembly,  had  the  order  of  the  previous 
Assembly  been  disregarded.  And  we  presume  that  the  synods  of 
Albany  and  Illinois  cannot  expect  that  the  delegates  from  their 
mixed  presbyteries  can  be  allowed  to  sit.  The  Assembly  has 
declared  that  "the  existence  of  such  presbyteries  is  recognised 

*  See  Minutes  and  Address  of  the  Auburn  Convention,  New  York  Observer,  Octo- 
"37. 


THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  263 

neither  in  the  former  nor  the  amended  constitution  of  the  church/' 
and  that  they  can  recognise  none  such.  These  brethren  say  they 
must  recognise  them.  The  controversy  is  thus  narrowed  to  the 
smallest  possible  limits.  Those  who  think  that  the  Plan  of  Union 
is  inviolable,  vi^ill  of  course  vote  for  the  admission  of  the  delegates 
from  the  mixed  presbyteries ;  but  those  who  think  the  Assembly 
had  a  right  to  set  it  aside,  must  vote  for  their  exclusion.  Here  is 
a  general  principle,  adopted  by  the  Assembly,  applicable  not  to  the 
presbyteries  of  the  four  synods  only,  but  to  all  others  of  a  similar 
character.  Has  then  the  General  Assembly  a  right  to  say  that 
they  will  no  longer  recognise  any  presbytery  composed  partly  of 
Presbyterians  and  partly  of  Congregationalists  ?  This  seems  to  us 
a  very  plain  point.  Chief  Justice  Ewing  says,  an  ecclesiastical 
body  which  is  not  organized  in  the  manner  provided  and  sanctioned 
by  the  constitution  of  a  church,  cannot  be  deemed  a  constitutional 
judicatory  of  that  church.*'  Our  constitution  says  that  "  a  presby- 
tery is  a  convention  of  bishops  and  elders  within  a  certain  district ;" 
these  presbyteries  are,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  conventions 
of  Presbyterian  ministers  and  Congregational  laymen.  Beyond 
doubt,  therefore,  they  are  unconstitutionally  organized.  It  has  been 
attempted  to  evade  this  argument  by  assuming  that  the  Assembly 
had  a  right  to  set  aside  the  constitution ;  or  that  the  original  error 
has  been  so  long  acquiesced  in,  as  to  be  now  legally  sanctioned ; 
or  that,  admitting  the  right  to  repeal  the  Plan  of  Union,  the 
abrogation,  though  it  might  prevent  the  formation  of  new  churches 
under  its  sanction,  could  not  deprive  of  its  benefits  those  already 
formed.  The  first  of  these  assumptions  need  not  be  argued. 
For  nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  a  body  acting  under  a  con- 
stitution cannot  alter  it.  A  corporation  might  as  well  pretend 
to  change  its  own  charter.  The  second  assumption  is  much  more 
plausible.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  argue  the  question,  how 
far  long  continued  and  general  acquiescence  can  sanction  uncon- 
stitutional acts.  It  is  enough  for  our  present  purpose  to  show, 
that  admitting  all  that  can  be  demanded  on  this  point,  does  not  help 
the  case.  We  may  safely  grant  that  the  long  acquiescence  in  the 
Plan  of  Union  had  given  it  such  a  sanction,  that  Congregational 
laymen  had  a  legal  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  our  judicatories,  as  long 
as  it  continued  in  force.  But  how  does  this  prove  that  they  have 
the  right  now  it  is  abrogated?  As  long  ago  as  1794,  the  Assem- 
bly formed  an  agreement  with  the  Association  of  Connecticut,  and 
subsequently  with  those  of  Vermont,  New  Hampshire,  and  Massa- 
chusetts, by  which  the  Congregational  delegates  of  these  bodies 
were  allowed  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  even  in  judicial  cases.  This  arrangement  was 
palpably  unconstitutional.  And  yet  during  its  continuance,  the 
right  of  these  delegates  to  vote,  sanctioned  by  silent  acquiescence 
for  ten,  twenty,  or  thirty  years,  could  not,  perhaps,  on  a  given 

*  Halsted's  Reports,  vol.  vii.,  p.  219. 


264  THE    DIVISION    OP 

occasion,  be  successfully  questioned.  Now  the  arrangement  is  set 
aside,  have  they  still  this  right  ?  May  delegates  from  all  these 
Associations  appear  in  the  next  Assembly,  and  vote  on  all  the  great 
constitutional  questions  which  may  come  before  it  ?  The  supposi- 
tion is  absurd.  And  it  is  no  less  absurd  to  maintain  that  because 
Congregationalists  had,  under  the  Plan  of  Union,  a  right  to  sit 
and  vote  in  our  judicatories,  therefore  they  have  still  the  right  after 
its  abrogation. 

It  is  obvious,  therefore,  these  brethren  are  driven  back  to  the 
extreme  position  that  the  Plan  of  Union  could  not  be  abrogated, 
which  they  must  maintain  in  the  face  of  common  sense  and  of 
their  own  lawyers ;  or  they  must  make  the  scarcely  less  desperate 
assumption,  that  the  effect  of  the  abrogation  is  only  to  prevent  the 
introduction  of  new  Congregational  Churches,  but  cannot  affect 
our  relation  to  those  already  connected  with  us.  That  is,  that  the 
repeal  of  a  law  only  forbids  its  extension,  not  its  continued  opera- 
tion. The  Plan  effected  a  union  between  us  and  Congregational- 
ists, its  abrogation  dissolves  that  union.  This  is  the  common 
sense  view  of  the  case.  The  Plan  says  that  Christians  of  another 
denomination  may  sit  in  our  presbyteries,  and  be  represented  in  all 
our  church  courts ;  its  repeal  says  that  they  can  do  so  no  longer. 
Such  is  admitted  to  be  the  effect  of  the  abrogation  of  this  term  of 
agreement  with  the  Associations  of  New  England.  Such  is  the 
acknowledged  operation  of  the  rightful  rescinding  of  any  compact 
between  the  different  states  or  churches.  If  our  civil  government 
had  by  law  allowed  the  citizens  of  France  or  England  certain 
commercial  or  political  privileges,  they  might  be  rightfully  enjoyed 
as  long  as  the  law  continued  in  force,. but  would  necessarily  cease 
when  the  law  was  repealed.  Had  such  citizens  for  a  series  of 
years  been  allowed  to  vote  at  all  our  elections,  could  they  continue 
to  claim  the  right  when  the  law  giving  them  the  privilege  was 
repealed  ?  Admitting  the  right  to  repeal,  there  can  be  no  question 
as  to  its  operation. 

We  maintain,  therefore,  that  if  it  be  conceded  that  the  General 
Assembly  had  the  constitutional  authority  to  abrogate  the  Plan  of 
Union,  everything  is  conceded.  If  the  Assembly  had  a  right  to 
say  they  will  no  longer  recognise  presbyters  composed  partly  of 
Presbyterians  and  partly  of  Congregationalists,  then  the  whole 
case  is  decided ;  for  it  all  turns  on  this  one  point.  All  that  the 
Assembly  did  is  included  in  that  one  declaration.  They  knew 
that  all  the  presbyteries  of  the  Western  Reserve  were  thus  organ- 
ized, and  they  therefore  said  they  could  not  any  longer  regard 
them  as  connected  with  the  Presbyterian  Church.  They  thought 
they  had  sufficient  evidence  that  such  was  the  fact  also  with  regard 
to  the  presbyteries  of  the  three  synods  in  New  York ;  and  they 
therefore  made  the  same  declaration  with  regard  to  them.  In  case, 
however,  there  was  a  mistake  in  any  instance  as  to  this  point,  it 
was  ordered  that  any  presbytery  that  could  make  it  appear  that 
its  organization  was  purely  Presbyterian,  should  so  report  itself  to 


THE   PRESBYTERIAN   CHURCH.  265 

the  next  General  Assembly.  If  the  Presbyterians  within  these 
synods,  chose  to  sep^^rate  themselves  from  Congregationalists, 
they  would  place  themselves  out  of  the  scope  of  the  above  men- 
tioned declaration,  and  no  obstacle  was  placed  in  the  way  of  their 
being  recognised.*  The  whole  question  therefore  is,  whether  this 
declaration  of  the  General  Assembly,  with  regard  to  mixed  presby- 
teries, is  constitutional  and  valid  ?  Can  it  be  that  such  lawyers  as 
Mr.  Wood  and  Chancellor  Kent  have  pronounced  it  to  be  "  illegal 
and  void ;"  that  the  General  Assembly  is  bound,  to  the  end  of 
time,  to  allow  Congregationalists  to  sit  in  our  judicatories,  to 
decide  on  the  standing  of  our  ministers,  to  form  and  administer 
our  laws,  pronounce  authoritatively  on  our  doctrines,  while  they 
themselves  neither  adopt  our  Confession  of  Faith,  nor  submit  to 
our  form  of  government  ?  We  can  scarcely  believe  this  to  be 
possible.  We  are  prepared  to  show,  not  that  these  distinguished 
gentlemen  are  bad  lawyers,  but  that  a  false  issue  has  been  pre- 
sented to  them,  and  that  they  have  consequently  given  an  opinion 
which  has  no  relation  to  the  real  point  in  debate.  We  think  it  can 
be  made  to  appear,  that  admitting  every  one  of  the  legal  princi- 
ples on  which  their  opinion  rests,  the  true  point  at  issue  is  left 
untouched.  The  error  is  not  in  the  law,  but  in  the  facts.  We  are 
not,  therefore,  about  to  enter  the  lists  with  these  gentlemen  as  law- 
yers, but  to  show  that  their  clients  did  not  put  them  in  possession 
of  the  real  state  of  the  case.  It  is  no  presumption  on  our  part  to 
claim  to  be  better  acquainted  with  the  constitution  of  the  Presby- 
terian church,  and  with  the  acts  of  the  General  Assembly,  than  the 
distinguished  gentlemen  above  mentioned. 

As  far  as  we  can  discover,  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Wood  and  Chan- 
cellor Kentf  rest  on  the  following  principles  and  assumptions.  1. 
That  the  Plan  of  Union  was  not  of  the  nature  of  a  contract  per- 
petually binding.  2.  That  the  General  Assembly  had  authority  to 
form  that  plan.  3.  That  long-continued  usage  and  general  acqui- 
escence forbid  its  constitutionality  being  now  called  into  question. 
4.  That  the  revision  of  the  constitution,  in  1821,  after  the  forma- 
tion of  the  plan,  was  sufficient  to  sanction  it ;  no  objection  having 
then  been  made  to  it.  5.  That  the  abrogation  of  the  Plan  of  1801 
could  not  affect  that  of  1808,  and  the  churches  formed  under  it. 
6.  That  the  acts  relating  to  the  four  synods  were  of  the  nature  of 
a  judicial  process.  7.  That  previous  notice  and  opportunity  of 
being  heard  are  essential  to  the  validity  of  any  such  process.     8. 

•  The  General  Assembly  say,  "  The  Assembly  has  made  provision  for  the  oi:^:ani- 
zation  into  presbyteries  and  annexation  to  this  body  of  all  the  ministers  and  churches 
who  are  thoroughly  Presbyterian." — P.  452. 

t  We  do  not  make  any  particular  reference  to  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Hopkins,  for  he 
expressly  waves  the  great  point  at  issue,  viz.,  "  the  constitutional  right  of  repealing 
the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801."  However  clear  and  just  may  be  the  legal  principles 
which  he  advances,  they  do  not,  except  so  far  as  they  are  identical  with  those  con- 
tained in  the  opimpns  of  the  other  gentlemen,  appear  to  us  to  have  any  bearing  oq 
the  case. 


266 


THE   DIVISION   OP 


That  the  repeal  of  a  law  cannot  annul  or  impair  acts  rightfully- 
done  under  its  authority. 

1.  As  to  the  first  of  these  points,  Mr.  Wood  is  very  explicit. 
He  says  the  Plan  of  Union  was  not  a  compact,  "  so  as  to  render 
it  obhgatory  on  the  General  Assembly  to  carry  into  effect  the  mea- 
sure, or  TO  CONTINUE  ITS  OPERATION  ANY  LONGER  THAN  THEY  SHOULD 

DEEM  PROPER.  It  was  a  mcasurc  originating  with  and  belonging 
exclusively  to  the  General  Assembly."  This  is  no  doubt  true. 
This  concession  is  all  that  need  be  asked.  The  Assembly  has 
done  nothing  more  than  is  here  admitted  to  be  within  their  power. 
They  have  put  an  end  to  the  operation  of  the  Plan  in  question. 
On  this  point  Chancellor  Kent  is  not  so  explicit,  and,  we  must  take 
leave  to  say,  is  not  quite  consistent  with  himself.  He,  however, 
says  expressly :  "  I  am  by  no  means  of  the  opinion  that  the  Pres- 
byterian churches  were  to  be  always  bound  by  such  agreements, 
when  they  are  found  to  be  ultimately  injurious."  This  certainly 
means  that  the  Presbyterian  church  was  at  liberty  to  set  this 
agreement  aside,  when  it  proved  to  be  injurious.  The  assent  of 
the  other  party,  he  adds,  "  could  not  be  decently  withheld."  At 
most,  then,  there  was  an  error  as  to  courtesy  ;  for  no  right  is  vio- 
lated in  not  asking  for  an  assent  which  the  other  party  had  no 
right  to  withhold.  The  General  Assembly,  however,  agreed  with 
Mr.  Wood,  that  this  was  a  measure  belonging  exclusively  to  them- 
selves, and  therefore  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  make  any  appli- 
cation on  the  subject. 

2.  These  gentlemen  think  that  the  formation  of  this  Plan  was 
within  the  legitimate  authority  of  the  General  Assembly.  As  this 
is  a  point  relating  to  the  construction  of  our  own  constitution,  we 
feel  at  liberty  to  question  the  correctness  of  this  opinion.  It  is  on 
all  hands  admitted,  that  the  Assembly  has  no  authority  to  alter  the 
constitution  in  the  smallest  particular.  Does  the  Plan  in  question 
effect  any  such  alteration  ?  The  constitution  prescribes  one 
method  in  which  churches  are  to  be  organized  and  governed,  the 
Plan  prescribes  another  ;  the  constitution  lays  down  certain  essen- 
tial qualifications  for  the  members  of  our  judicatories,  the  Plan 
dispenses  with  them  ;  the  constitution  grants  the  right  of  appeal  in 
all  cases,  the  Plan  denies  it.  Are  not  these  alterations?  We 
cannot  conceive  a  plainer  point. 

3.  It  is  said,  however,  that  long-established  usage  and  general 
acquiescence  have  great  effect  in  determining  the  rights  and 
powers  of  bodies.  We  admit  the  principle  as  thus  stated.  It 
is,  however,  liable  to  many  limitations.  In  the  first  place,  it 
is  applicable  only  to  doubtful  cases.  "  Where  the  intent  of  a 
statute  is  plain,"  say  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
"nothing  is  left  to  construction."*  "The  constitution  fixes 
limits  to   the   exercise   of  legislative   authority,   and   prescribes 

*  Coxe's  Digest  of  the  Decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  &c., 
p.  183. 


THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  267 

the  orbit  in  which  it  must  move.  Whatever  may  be  the 
case  in  other  countries,  yet  in  this  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
every  act  of  the  legislature  repugnant  to  the  constitution  is 
absolutely  void." — P.  167.  "  The  framers  of  the  constitution  must 
be  understood  to  have  employed  words  in  their  natural  sense,  and 
to  have  intended  what  they  have  said ;  and  in  construing  the 
extent  of  the  powers  which  it  creates,  there  is  no  other  rule  than 
to  consider  the  language  of  the  instrument  which  confers  them  in 
connexion  with  the  purposes  for  which  they  were  conferred."* — P. 
177.  The  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  could  in  no  country 
be  preserved,  if  usage  and  precedent  were  allowed  to  close  their 
mouths  against  oppressive  and  illegal  acts.  When  Charles  I. 
claimed  the  right  to  give  to  his  proclamations  the  force  of  law,  and 
to  exact  money  under  the  name  of  benevolences,  and  without 
consent  of  parliament,  he  could  plead,  especially  for  the  former, 
the  usage  of  a  hundred  years.  Henry  VIIL,  Elizabeth,  James  I. 
had,  over  and  over,  done  the  same  thing.  Parliament  had  been 
silent ;  the  people  had  acquiesced.  Had  the  nation  then  lost  its 
rights  ?  Had  Magna  Charta  become,  by  a  contrary  usage,  a  dead 
letter  ?  Was  Hampden  justly  condemned  for  refusing  to  pay  these 
exactions?  Nine,  indeed,  out  of  the  twelve  judges,  decided  for  usage 
against  the  constitution.  But  did  this  alter  the  matter?  Does  any 
one  now  think  Hampden  wrong  and  the  judges  right  ?  Under  our 
own  government  it  is  a  doubtful  point  whether  congress  have  a 
right  to  establish  a  national  bank.  In  this  case,  the  decisions  of  the 
supreme  court,  the  repeated  acts  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature, 
the  long-continued  acquiescence  of  the  people,  might  perhaps  be 
allowed  to  settle  the  matter.  But  is  this  the  fact?  Does  the 
country  feel  itself  precluded  from  raising  the  constitutional  objec- 
tion ?  And  if,  instead  of  being  a  doubtful  case,  it  were  one  of 
palpable  violation  of  the  constitution,  does  any  one  imagine  that 
the  plea  of  usage  and  acquiescence  would  be  listened  to  a  moment? 
Our  General  Assembly,  though  a  representative  and  legislative 
body,  was  long  in  the  habit  of  inviting  any  minister,  who  hap- 
pened to  be  present  at  its  deliberations,  to  sit  and  vote  as  a 
corresponding  member.  No  one  objected.  The  thing  went  on, 
year  after  year,  until  it  became  an  established  usage.  At  last, 
however,  when  the  church  was  enlarged,  it  was  seen  that  this 
custom  operated  most  unfairly  on  the  distant  portions,  and  was  in 
fact  subversive  of  the  very  character  of  the  house  as  a  represent- 
ative body.  Could  usage  be  pleaded  in  defence  of  such  a  rule, 
or  against  its  abrogation  ?  It  was  in  equal  violation  of  the  consti- 
tution that  the  Assembly  so  long  allowed  the  delegates  of  the  New 
England  Associations  to  vote  in  its  meetings.  For  this  agreement 
long  usage  might  be  urged.  But  does  this  prove  either  that  the 
thing  was  right,  or  that  the  hands  of  the  Presbyterian  church  were 
tied  up  so  that  they  must  for  ever  submit  to  k  ?  John  Randolph 
said  he  never  could  forget  that  the  book  of  Judges  stood  just 
before  the  Book  of  Kings.    We  do  not  admit  the  justice  of  the 


^68  THE   DIVISION    OP 

insinuation  which  he  intended  to  convey  by  this  remark.  No 
country  has  less  to  fear  or  more  to  admire  in  its  judges.  But  we 
do  believe  there  is  no  principle  more  dangerous  to  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  nations  and  churches,  than  that  usage  may  be  set  up 
in  opposition  to  express  constitutional  provisions. 

A  second  limitation  is  suggested  by  Chancellor  Kent  himself, 
who  says,  this  assent  must  be  "  given  understandingly,  and  with  a 
full  knowledge  of  the  facts."  The  acquiescence  pleaded  in  behalf 
of  the  Plan  of  Union  was  not  thus  given.  As  first  assented  to,  it 
was  regarded  as  a  mere  temporary  arrangement  for  a  few  frontier 
churches.  It  continued  to  be  regarded  as  such  for  a  long  series  of 
years.  The  distant  portions  of  the  church  scarcely  ever  heard  or 
thought  of  it,  or  had  the  least  idea  of  the  extent  to  which  it  had 
been  carried.  When  they  came  to  learn  that  it  was  the  basis  of 
entire  synods  containing  hundreds  of  Congregational  churches, 
they  were  astonished.  This  was  a  state  of  things  of  which  they 
had  not  the  least  conception.  The  churches  had  no  means  of 
becoming  acquainted  with  these  facts.  The  reports  of  the  western 
presbyteries  to  the  General  Assembly,  the  only  source  of  inform- 
ation on  this  subject,  do  not,  except  in  a  few  instances,  state  which 
of  their  churches  are  Congregational  and  which  are  Presbyterian. 
Thus  in  the  minutes  for  last  year,  there  are,  we  believe,  less  than 
half  a  dozen  churches  within  the  three  synods,  reported  as  Congre- 
gational, when,  as  appears  from  Rev.  Mr.  Wood's  Pamphlet,  there 
are  at  least  one  hundred  and  seventy-three.*  The  fidelity,  candour 
and  talent  with  which  this  report  of  Rev.  Mr.  Wood  is  prepared, 
entitle  it  to  great  confidence.  He  has  performed  a  valuable  ser- 
vice in  spreading  the  information  which  it  contains  before  the 
public.  This  is  the  more  important  as  there  seems  to  be  a  strong 
disinclination,  on  the  part  Of  those  concerned,  to  allow  the  facts  to 
be  known.  The  Auburn  convention  appointed  a  committee  on  the 
statistics  of  the  three  synods,  but  no  detailed  report  of  the  result 
of  their  labours,  as  far  as  we  are  informed,  has  been  published. 
Seeing,  therefore,  that  the  churches  generally  knew  little  on  this 
subject,  it  would  be  most  unjust  to  infer  acquiescence  from  igno- 
rance. Because  the  distant  presbyteries  long  assented  to  here  and 
there  a  solitary  individual  voting  as  a  corresponding  member  in 
the  General  Assembly,  is  it  believed  they  would  consent,  with  their 
eyes  open,  to  all  the  neighbouring  synods  thus  voting  ?  In  the 
present  case  the  churches  were  ignorant  of  the  facts  ;  they  thought 
themselves  assenting  to  one  thing,  which  proves  to  be  another. 
They  thought  themselves  assenting  to  a  plan  for  sustaining  feeble 
churches  in  "  new  settlements ;"  when  it  turns  out  to  be,  in  their 
estimation,  a  plan  for  permanently  establishing  Congregationalism 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  to  the  entire  subversion  of  its  consti- 
tution. The  plan,  with  good  intentions  no  doubt,  had  been  mon- 
strously  perverted,  both  by  extending  and  perpetuating  it  far 

*  We  quote  from  the  second  edition  as  published  in  the  Presbyterian. 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  269 

beyond  its  original  intention,  and  by  an  open  disregard  of  its  most 
important  provisions.  All  this  was  done  silently  ;  the  churches 
knew  nothing  about  it.  Can  acquiescence,  yielded  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, be  used  either  in  proof  of  an  acknowledgment  of  the 
authority  of  the  Assembly  to  form  the  Plan,  or  in  bar  of  its  abro- 
gation ?  The  argument  from  consent  is  used  for  both  these  pur- 
poses, though  not  by  Mr.  Wood.  We  are  persuaded  it  is  entirely 
worthless  lor  either. 

4.  It  is  argued  that  as  the  constitution  was  revised  and  amended 
in  1821,  and  as  no  objection  was  then  made  to  the  Plan  of  Union, 
it  must  be  regarded  as  constitutional.  Had  these  gentlemen  been 
acquainted  with  the  facts  in  the  case,  it  is  hardly  possible  they 
could  have  advanced  this  argument.  The  Plan  of  Union  was 
nothing  but  a  series  of  resolutions  on  the  minutes  of  the  General 
Assembly.  The  revision  of  the  constitution  afforded  no  occasion 
to  express  any  opinion  on  this  subject.  It  was  never  alluded  to. 
And  we  presume  there  was  not  a  single  presbytery  in  the  whole 
church  that  so  much  as  thought  of  it,  when  they  assented  to 
amendments  proposed  to  them.  It  seems  to  us  a  monstrous  pro- 
position that  the  churches,  in  assenting  to  the  rule  that  presbyteries 
must  consist  of  ministers  and  ruling  elders,  are  to  be  held  to  have 
thereby  assented  to  their  being  composed  of  ministers  and  Con- 
gregational laymen.  The  only  use  that  can  be  made  of  the  fact 
referred  to  is,  to  show  the  church  was  not  sufficiently  aware  of 
the  danger  of  these  unions,  to  lead  it  to  insert  an  express  prohibi- 
tion against  any  such  violations  of  the  constitution,  on  the  part  of 
the  General  Assembly.  This,  however,  would  be  so  completely  a 
work  of  supererogation,  that  were  the  constitution  to  be  revised 
to-morrow,  we  do  not  believe  the  strictest  man  in  the  church  would 
think  it  necessary  to  insert  one  word  on  the  subject.  The  silent 
revision  of  the  constitution,  therefore,  affords  no  argument  for  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  power  of  the  Assembly  to  Ibrm  the  Plan 
of  Union,  nor  for  the  assent  of  the  churches  to  that  Plan,  supposing 
it  to  be  a  compact.  Mr.  Wood  uses  the  fact  for  the  one  purpose  ; 
Chancellor  Kent  for  the  other. 

5.  The  abrogation  of  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1801,  it  is  said,  could 
have  no  effect  upon  that  of  1808,  or  on  the  churches  received  under 
it.  This  has  always  appeared  to  us  the  most  extraordinary  argu- 
ment connected  with  this  whole  subject.  It  is  not  surprising  that 
these  legal  gentlemen,  being  told  that  all  the  Congregational 
churches  within  the  three  synods  came  into  connexion  with  us, 
under  the  latter,  and  not  under  the  former  Plan,  should  say  just 
what  they  have  said.  But  it  is  surprising  that  the  assertion  upon 
which  the  argument  is  founded,  should  ever  have  been  made. 
The  Plan  of  1808,  according  to  the  extracts  from  the  minutes  of 
the  synod  of  Albany,  published  in  the  New  York  Observer,  Sept. 
12,  1835,  and  in  the  Presbyterian,  Sept.  16,  1837,  arose  out  of  a 
request  of  the  synod  of  Albany  to  the  General  Assembly  to  sanc- 
tion their  union  and  correspondence,  upon  certain  terms,  with  the 


270  THE    DIVISION    OP 

Middle  Association,  and  the  Northern  Association  Presbytery. 
To  this  request  the  Assembly  acceded.  The  former  of  these 
bodies,  according  to  the  report  of  1809,  embraced  twenty-one 
churches,  the  latter,  as  we  understand,  about  twelve  or  fifteen. 
Here  then  was  permission'  to  receive,  on  certain  conditions,  two 
definite  ecclesiastical  bodies,  with  their  thirty-three  or  thirty-six 
churches.  Can  any  one  conceive  how  permission  to  receive  thirty- 
six  churches  can  be  tortured  into  a  permission  to  receive  two  hun- 
dred ?  The  number  received  must  indeed  far  exceed  two  hundred  ; 
for  almost  the  entire  basis  of  three  synods,  embracing  upwards 
of  four  hundred  churches,  was  the  Congregational  churches 
of  that  region.*  Yet  we  are  gravely  told  that  all  these  churches 
were  received  in  virtue  of  the  permission  to  receive  the  two  bodies 
just  mentioned,  with  their  thirty-six  congregations.  We  do  not 
understand  this ;  and  those  who  make  the  assertion  are  bound  to 
explain  it.  What  do  the  Auburn  convention  mean  by  saying, 
"  The  WHOLE  TERRITORY  embracing  the  three  synods  of  New  York 
came  into  connexion  with  the  Presbyterian  church,  so  far  as  they 
were  Congregationalists,"  in  virtue  of  the  Plan  of  1808.  Does 
this  mean  that  the  Assembly,  in  consenting  to  receive  two  ecclesi- 
astical bodies,  consented  to  receive  the  whole  territory  covered 
by  the  three  synods,  and  therefore  all  the  churches  which  then 
existed,  or  have  since  been  formed  upon  it  ?  If  this  explanation 
is  too  monstrous  to  be  possible,  what  does  it  mean  ?  There  is  no 
clause  in  the  agreement  which  admits  of  its  indefinite  extension 
It  refers  to  those  two  bodies  as  then  constituted,  and  to  no 
others.  If,  then,  the  Congregational  churches  within  these  synods 
did  not  come  in  under  the  Plan  of  1801,  there  is  not  a  shadow  of 
a  warrant  for  the  connexion,  as  it  relates  to  by  far  the  greater  por- 
tion of  them.  That  plan  is  the  only  one  which  covers  the  whole 
ground.  It  permitted  a  union  with  Congregational  churches 
wherever  found.  There  is  indeed  a  sense  in  which  this  plan  does 
not  reach  the  case  of  many,  perhaps  of  most  of  these  churches. 
It  allowed  of  a  connexion  with  those  congregations  only  which 
were  of  a  mixed  character,  and  which  had  a  standing  committee 
as  a  substitute  for  a  session.  In  a  multitude  of  cases,  however, 
churches  purely  Congregational  have  been  allowed  to  come  in 
under  its  sanction.f     The  stated  clerk  of  the  presbytery  of  Buf- 

*  Dr.  Peters  said  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  that  the  obligation  resulting  from 
the  Plan  of  Union,  "  had  now  been  transferred  to  a  body  twice,  yes,  five  times  as 
large  as  the  Association  of  Connecticut.  All  these  presbyteries  and  synods  were 
not  only  organized  on  this  Plan,  but  have  called  our  ministers,  &.c."  This  was  said 
in  reference  to  the  plan  of  1801,  when  we  presume  he  knew  as  little  of  that  of  1808 
as  we  did.  We  refer  to  the  statement  merely  as  an  admission  of  the  fact  referred  to 
in  the  text. 

t  *•  The  Plan  of  Union  being  adapted  to  a  state  of  things  where  Congregationalists 
and  Presbyterians  were  mingled  in  one  congregation,  and  there  being,  in  fact,  in 
these  churcheSyUO  Presbyterians,  ^nd  none  who  understood  their  peculiar  discipline, 
the  churches  were  not  in  fact,  strictly  speaking,  admitted  on  that  Plan.  In  nine 
cases  out  of  ten  there  were  no  standing  committees,  and  the  only  difference  between 
their  then  situation  and  their  previous  one,  was  the  fact  that  one  of  the  brethren 


THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  21^1 

falo  says  it  was  "  an  uniform  rule  in  such  cases'*  to  wink  at  this 
irregularity,  "  by  considering  the  whole  church  the  standing  com- 
mittee." We  think,  by  the  way,  that  Chancellor  Kent  would 
admit  that  here  was  such  a  "  new  circumstance"  as  would  justify 
the  abrogation  even  of  a  compact ;  that  an  agreement  to  receive 
mixed  churches  is  not  an  agreement  to  receive  such  as  are  purely 
Congregational.  The  conditions  on  which  this  Middle  Associa- 
tion was  received  were,  1.  That  it  should  assume  our  name  ; 
though  this  was  not  insisted  upon.  2.  That  it  should  adopt  our 
standards  of  doctrine  and  government.  3.  That  the  congrega- 
tions, if  they  insist  upon  it,  might  manage  their  internal  discipline 
agreeably  to  their  old  method,  and  that  their  delegates  might  sit  as 
ruling  elders.  It  is  doubtful  whether  these  conditions  were  com- 
plied with.  Mr.  Smith,  the  stated  clerk  of  the  synod  of  Albany, 
says  the  association  acceded  to  the  invitation  (which  in  the  first 
instance  proceeded  from  themselves),  "declining,  however,  the 
terms  of  adopting  the  standai^ds."  This  may  indeed  be  understood 
of  the  internal  government  of  the  churches.  But  if  it  refers  to  a 
refusal  of  the  ministers  to  adopt  our  standards,  then  the  whole  thing 
is  void,  and  the  union  never  was  sanctioned.  This  Plan  then,  at 
most,  was  nothing  more  than  the  permission  to  apply  that  of  1801, 
somewhat  modified,  to  two  ecclesiastical  bodies.  That  this  iso- 
lated fact  should  be  made  the  basis  of  an  obligation  to  receive  all 
the  Congregational  churches  in  New  York,  is  a  perfect  absurdity. 
Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  the  General  Assembly,  in  abo- 
lishing the  Plan  of  Union,  did,  according  to  their  own  declaration, 
state  that  as  the  constitution  does  not  recognise  presbyteries  com- 
posed partly  of  Presbyterians  and  partly  of  Congregationalists, 
they  can  no  longer  recognise  them.  If  this  declaration  be  consti- 
tutional and  valid,  it  matters  not  now  where  these  presbyteries 
may  be  found,  whether  in  Massachusetts,  New  York,  Pennsylva- 
nia, Ohio,  Illinois,  or  South  Carolina ;  nor  when,  nor  by  what 
means  they  were  organized  and  connected  with  the  Presbyterian 
church.  All  this  debate,  therefore,  about  the  Plan  of  1801  and 
that  of  1808,  as  we  understand  the  action  of  the  Assembly,  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  subject. 

6.  It  is  assumed  that  the  acts  of  the  General  Assembly,  relating 
to  the  four  synods,  were  of  the  nature  of  a  judicial  process. 

7.  That  previous  notice  and  opportunity  of  being  heard  are 
essential  to  the  validity  of  any  such  process.  These  two  points 
may  be  considered  together.  To  begin  with  the  latter.  The 
correctness  of  the  general  principle  which  it  states  is  readily 
admitted.  There  are,  however,  exceptions  to  it.  The  grand 
object  of  a  judicial  investigation  is  to  arrive  at  a  knowledge  of 
facts ;  and  the  design  of  the  various  rules  directing  how  such  inves- 

occasionally  went  as  a  delegate  to  Presbytery,  who  was  regularly  returned  in  their 
minutes  as  an  elder."  See  the  Circular  Letter  of  the  Association  of  Western  New 
York,  N.  Y.  Evangelist,  Nov.  21,  1836,  The  above  statement  is  made  with  special 
reference  to  the  churches  west  of  the  Genesee  river. 


272  THE    DIVISION   OF 

tigation  is  to  be  conducted,  is  to  prevent  misapprehension  or  per- 
version of  those  facts.  There  may,  how^ever,  be  cases  so  clear 
and  notorious  as  to  supersede  the  necessity  of  any  such  investiga- 
tion, and  to  free  any  court  from  the  obligation  to  observe  those 
rules.  It  is  a  general  principle  that  no  man  can  be  deprived  of  his 
liberty  or  property  but  by  due  process  of  law^.  Yet  a  judge  may 
send  any  man  to  jail  without  trial,  for  a  contempt  committed  in 
open  court.  In  like  manner,  were  any  minister  to  be  guilty  of  open 
profaneness  in  the  presence  of  his  presbytery,  he  might  be  sus- 
pended or  deposed  by  a  simple  vote.  Or  if  a  presbytery  or  synod 
had  publicly  and  officially  rejected  the  standards  of  the  church, 
and  avowed  heresy,  they  might  be  declared  out  of  the  church  by 
a  vote  of  a  superior  judicatory.  In  all  such  cases,  however,  the 
offence  must  be  public  and  flagrant.  We  make  these  remarks,  not 
because  they  have  any  bearing  on  the  present  case,  but  because, 
having  admitted  the  principle,  it  was  necessary  to  state  the  limit- 
ation. 

This  principle  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  case  of  the  four 
synods,  except  on  the  assumption  that  the  acts  of  the  Assembly  in 
relation  to  them  were  of  a  judicial  nature.  This,  however,  the 
Assembly  deny.  They  state  explicitly  that  they  do  not  intend 
"to  affect  in  any  way  the  ministerial  standing  of  any  members  of 
either  of  the  said  synods ;  nor  to  disturb  the  pastoral  relation  in 
any  church ;  nor  to  interfere  with  the  duties  or  relations  of  private 
Christians  in  their  respective  congregations,"  but  simply  to  declare 
in  what  relation  they  stand  to  the  Presbyterian  church.  The 
ground  of  this  declaration  is  not  error  in  doctrine,  nor  immoralities 
in  conduct,  nor  any  other  judicial  offence ;  it  is  simply  and  solely 
unconstitutional  organization.  A  General  Assembly  may  assuredly 
entertain  the  question,  whether  an  inferior  judicatory  is  constituted 
according  to  the  requirements  of  our  form  of  government ;  and  a 
decision  of  that  question  in  the  negative,  is  not  a  judicial  decision. 
The  Assembly  first  abrogate  the  Plan  of  Union,  and  then  say  they 
consider  that  abrogation  as  putting  an  end  to  their  connexion  with 
all  bodies  formed  in  pursuance  of  that  Plan.  This  is  no  more  a 
judicial  process  than  the  severing  our  connexion  with  the  Reformed 
Dutch  church,  or  the  Association  of  New  Hampshire,  would  be. 

The  "gross  disorders"  mentioned  in  the  second  resolution,  in 
relation  to  the  three  synods  of  New  York,  are  not  mentioned  as  the 
ground  of  the  declarative  act  contained  in  the  first  resolution,  but 
merely  as  an  inducement  for  the  immediate  decision  of  the  whole 
subject.  Not  one  word  is  said  of  erroneous  doctrine,  nor  of  any 
other  disorders  than  those  connected  with  the  Plan  of  Union.*  The 
Assembly  simply  say  that  the  fact  that  the  Plan  has  been  abused, 
greatly  increased  their  desire  to  put  an  end  to  its  operation.     All 

*  The  Assembly  say,  **  Gross  disorders  which  are  ascertained  to  have  prevailed  in 
those  synods,  it  being  made  clear  to  us  that  the  Plan  of  Union  itself  was  never  con- 
sistently carried  into  effect  by  those  professing  to  act  under  it."  The  disorders 
referred  to,  therefore,  were  irregularities  connected  with  that  Plan. 


THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  .fSW 

the  remarks,  therefore,  in  these  legal  opinions,  about  the  injustice  of 
a  condemnation  founded  on  vague  charges  and  uncertain  rumours, 
though  true  and  important,  have  no  relation  to  the  present  case. 
These  synods  were  not  judged  on  the  ground  of  vague  charges, 
nor  on  the  evidence  of  uncertain  rumours.  They  were  not  judged 
at  all.  The  principle  that  the  constitution  does  not  recognise 
mixed  presbyteries  was  applied  to  them ;  and  it  was  left  to  their 
decision,  whether  they  would  continue  in  this  mixed  condition  and 
stay  out  of  the  church,  or  separate  from  Congregationalism  and 
come  in.     They  have,  it  appears,  decided  for  the  former. 

There  are  two  misapprehensions  in  Mr.  Wood's  opinion  which 
ought  to  be  corrected.  He  seems  to  think  that  the  ground  of  the 
decision  of  the  Assembly  was  the  previous,  and  not  the  present 
condition  of  these  churches  and  presbyteries.  "  If  a  congregation,'* 
he  says,  "at  present  Presbyterian,  were  originally  infidels,  that 
circumstance  would  not  furnish  a  reason  for  cutting  them  off  from 
their  ecclesiastical  connexion."  Certainly  not.  And  no  church 
or  presbytery  is  now  cut  off,  because  it  once  was  Congregational. 
It  is  the  present  mixed  character  of  the  ecclesiastical  bodies  effected 
by  the  action  of  the  Assembly,  which  was  the  ground  and  reason 
of  their  exclusion. 

The  second  misapprehension  is  nearly  allied  to  the  former,  and 
runs  through  the  whole  opinion.  He  supposes  the  declaration  of 
the  Assembly  to  relate  to  purely  Presbyterian  bodies,  and  to 
deprive  them  of  their  acknowledged  rights.  This,  however,  is  not 
the  fact.  No  regularly  organized  church  is  affected  by  that  decla- 
ration except  in  virtue  of  its  connexion  with  a  mixed  presbytery, 
and  even  then,  only  so  far  as  to  require  it  to  seek  a  new  presbyte- 
rial  connexion.  And  no  regularly  organized  presbytery  is  affected 
by  it,  except  by  being  required  to  make  its  regularity  known.  The 
Assembly  has  not  assumed  the  power  of  cutting  off  any  regular 
ecclesiastical  body.  It  has  simply  said  it  will  no  longer  recognise 
mixed  ones.  Churches  being  connected  with  the  Assembly  only 
through  their  presbyteries,  they  can,  even  when  regular,  maintain 
that  connexion  in  no  other  way  than  being  connected  with  a 
regular  presbytery.  If  their  presbytery  be  disowned,  they  must 
join  another,  if  they  wish  to  continue  the  connexion.  If  a  Presby- 
terian church,  no  matter  how  regular  it  may  be,  should  put  itself 
under  the  care  of  an  Association,  or  any  other  body  not  in  con- 
nexion with  the  General  Assembly,  it  would  be  separated  from  us. 
And  by  parity  of  reason,  if  it  continues  in  connexion  with  a  body 
which  the  Assembly  say  they  can  no  longer  recognise,  it  forfeits 
its  rights.     But  then  it  is  its  own  act,  not  that  of  the  Assembly. 

8.  Finally,  it  is  said  the  repeal  of  a  law  cannot  annul  or  impair 
acts  rightfully  done  under  its  authority.  This,  too,  we  cheerfully 
admit.  The  law,  however,  must  be  a  constitutional  one  ;  other- 
wise it  is  no  law ;  it  is  a  nullity.  Our  new-school  brethren  pro- 
nounce certain  acts  of  the  last  Assembly  null  and  void.  If  so, 
would  it  be  right  to  deprive  their  commissioners  of  a  seat  in  the 

18 


274  THE    DIVISION    OP 

next  Assembly,  under  its  authority  ?  They  no  doubt  agree  with 
us  that  nothing  can  be  valid  which  rests  upon  an  unconstitutional 
enactment.  The  principle  above  stated,  however,  has  no  applica- 
tion to  the  present  case.  The  Assembly  do  not  propose  to  annul 
or  impair  any  acts  rightfully  done,  even  under  the  Plan  of  Union. 
No  church  or  presbytery  is  to  be  cast  off  because  it  was  originally 
organized  under  that  Plan.  The  Assembly  propose  to  act  on  the 
simple  principle  that  the  repeal  of  a  law  puts  an  end  to  its  author- 
ity. It  was  formerly  the  law,  whether  right  or  wrong,  that  Con- 
gregationalists  might  sit  in  our  presbyteries  and  be  represented  in 
the  General  Assembly.  This  is  the  law  no  longer.  Of  course 
they  cannot  now  thus  sit,  or  be  thus  represented.  This  is  the 
whole  case.  It  is  a  case  with  but  one  point  in  it.  Has  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  a  right  to  put  an  end  to  the  Plan  of  Union  ?  or,  is  it 
bound  to  the  end  of  time,  to  allow  Congregational ists  to  be  repre- 
sented in  all  our  church  courts,  and  to  make  laws  for  us,  to  which 
they  will  not  themselves  submit  ?  On  this  point  the  judgment  of 
Mr.  Wood  is  clear  and  explicit.  "  But  supposine,"  he  says,  "  the 
assent  of  the  Association  to  have  been  indispensable  :  when  it  was 
given  they  had  nothing  further  to  do  with  the  Plan.  It  then  became 
the  measure  of  the  General  Assembly  alone,  to  be  dropped,  or 
acted  upon,  or  modified,  as  they  should  deem  advisable."  It  is  upon 
this  undoubted  right  the  Assembly  have  acted.  Nor  have  they  gone 
beyond  it.  They  have  simply  declared  they  will  no  longer 
allow  what  that  Plan  freely  permitted.  If  therefore  commission- 
ers come  up  as  the  representatives  in  whole  or  in  part  of  Congre- 
gational churches,  that  is,  delegated  by  presbyteries  in  which  those 
churches  are  entitled  to  a  vote,  they  cannot,  consistently  with  the 
abrogation  of  that  Plan,  be  allowed  to  take  their  seats.  Should 
any  one  deny  the  propriety  or  justice  of  Presbyterians  thus  refus- 
ing to  be  governed  by  Christians  of  another  denomination,  whea 
they  conscientiously  believe  their  doctrines  and  discipline  are 
thereby  seriously  endangered,  he  certainly  is  entitled  to  his  opinion, 
but  we  cannot  think  it  worth  while  to  try  to  convince  him  of  his 
error. 

We  think  we  have  now  redeemed  our  promise,  to  show  that  the 
conclusions  at  which  these  legal  gentlemen  have  arrived,  are 
founded  on  false  assumptions  as  to  facts.*  All  the  legal  principle 
which  they  advance  may  be  freely  admitted,  without  at  all  affect- 
ing the  real  question  at  issue.  One  of  them  expressly,  the  othei 
virtually,  concedes  the  point  on  which  the  whole  case  depends 

•  There  cannot  be  a  clearer  proof  of  the  ignorance  in  which  these  gentlemen  were 
left  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Assembly  than  the  following  remark  of  Mr.  Wood. 
**  The  dissolution  of  the  Third  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,"  he  says,  "  is,  I  think, 
subject  to  the  same  objection  of  want  of  notice  and  opportunity  of  defence."  This 
act  of  the  Assembly  is  thus  placed  in  the  same  category  with  those  relating  to  the 
four  synods,  though  it  is  of  an  entirely  different  character.  The  dissolution  of  a 
presbytery  does  not  disconnect  its  members  with  the  Presbyterian  church.  The 
erection,  division,  or  dissolution  of  presbyteries,  occurs  more  or  less  every  year,  and 
in  the  regular  operation  of  our  system. 


THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  275 

They  admit  that  the  General  Assembly  had  the  right  to  disconnect 
itself  from  the  trammels  of  the  Plan  of  Union  ;  to  resolve  that  they 
would  no  longer  cany  it  into  effect;  that  they  could  not  allow 
Congregationalists,  or  their  representatives,  any  longer  to  take 
part  in  the  government  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  If  this  is 
constitutional,  valid,  and  proper,  the  case  appears  to  us  to  be  decid- 
ed. Every  presbytery  within  the  four  synods  is,  more  or  less,  of 
a  mixed  character.  Their  commissioners,  therefore,  must  appear 
as  the  representatives  of  Congregationalists  as  well  as  of  Presby- 
terians, and  consequently  can  be  entitled  to  their  seats  only  on  the 
assumption  that  the  abrogation  of  the  Plan  of  Union  is  illegal  and 
void. 

Supposing  this  first  step,  marked  out  in  the  course  proposed  by 
our  new-school  brethren,  to  be  decided  by  the  commissioners  from 
all  mixed  presbyteries,  being  refused  a  seat  in  the  next  Assembly, 
what  is  to  be  the  next  step  ?  This  has  not  been  very  clearly 
stated.  It  has,  however,  been  often  said,  and,  if  we  understand 
the  meaning  of  the  resolutions  of  several  of  their  public  bodies, 
publicly  intimated,  that  it  is  proposed  that  these  commissioners 
and  those  who  agree  with  them,  should  withdraw  and  organize 
themselves  as  the  true  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  the  United  States.  We  do  not  know  that  this  measure 
will  be  attempted.  It  is,  however,  so  important;  that  it  may  not 
be  improper  to  inquire  for  a  moment  into  its  probable  results. 
There  would  then  be  two  bodies,  each  claiming  to  be  the  General 
Assembly.  We  are  not  lawyers  enough  to  say  how  the  point  at 
issue  between  them  might  be  brought  before  a  civil  tribunal,  but 
we  presume  a  question  as  to  the  ownership  of  some  property 
might  easily  be  raised,  which  should  turn  on  this  point.  Suppos- 
ing this  to  be  done,  how  would  the  case  stand  ? 

It  is  on  all  hands  admitted  that  the  only  point  for  the  court  to 
decide,  is,  to  whom  the  property  in  controversy  belongs.  In  order 
that  any  claimants  should  make  out  their  ownership  to  the  pro- 
perty of  a  religious  society,  or  to  any  part  of  it,  they  must  make 
it  appear  that  they  are  members  of  that  society.  Mr.  Wood  tells 
us,  "  Though  a  religious  society  has  an  equitable  beneficial  inte- 
rest in  property  held  in  trust  for  them,  yet  they  take  it,  not  in  their 
individual,  but  in  their  social  capacity ;  they  take  it  as  members, 
and  only  so  long  as  they  have  the  qualifications  of  members."* 
Again,  on  p.  54,  he  says,  "An  individual  having  an  interest  in  pro- 
perty thus  held,  has  not  a  vested  interest.  He  is  benefited  by  it 
in  his  social  capacity,  and  when  he  of  himself  and  others  with  him, 
forming  a  party,  cease  to  be  members,  from  whatever  cause,  of 
that  particular  society,  they  cease  to  have  an  interest  in  the  pro- 
perty of  that  society."  Governor  Williamson,  the  other  counsel 
in  this  case,  teaches  the  same  doctrine.    "  If  they  withdraw  and 

•  See  the  Arguments  of  the  Counsel  of  John  Hendrickson,  in  a  case  (the  Quaker 
case)  decided  in  the  court  of  chancery  of  New  Jersey,  p.  9. 


1278  THE    DITISION    OF 

establish  a  new  society,  ....  they  cease  to  be  members  of  the 
original  society,  and  they  cease  to  have  any  claim  to  the  property 
when  they  cease  to  be  members,  their  claim  being  merely  as  mem- 
bers, not  as  indiyiduals."  P.  164. 

What  then  is  necessary  to  constitute  membership  ?  Being  the 
majority  of  the  individuals  of  which  the  society  was  composed, 
does  not  decide  the  point.  Suppose  the  majority  of  a  Protestant 
society  should  become  Roman  Catholics  or  Mahommedans,  would 
they  constitute  the  original  society,  or  continue  members  of  it  ? 
This  is  a  point  very  plain  in  itself,  and  happily  one  on  which  the 
authorities  are  very  explicit  and  united.  Mr.  Wood  tells  us, 
"  That  when  a  majority  of  a  church  secede  ....  those  that 
remain,  though  a  minority,  constitute  the  church  ....  and  retam 
the  property  belonging  thereto."  "  The  secession  of  the  majority 
of  the  members  would  have  no  other  effect  than  a  temporary 
absence  would  have  on  a  meeting  which  had  been  regularly  sum- 
moned." P.  54.  "  It  matters  not,"  says  Mr.  Williamson,  "  how 
many  go,  or  how  many  stay ;  if  five  remain,  or  if  only  one  remain, 

the  trust  must  remain  for  the  benefit  of  that  one Suppose 

the  majority  of  the  meeting  had  become  Presbyterians,  would  they 
still  be  the  same  preparative  meeting,  or  could  they  take  the  pro- 
perty with  them  ?"  P.  110.  "  The  principle  of  majority  has  never 
been  made  the  ground  of  decision  in  the  case  of  a  schism  in  a 
congregation  or  religious  society.  Such  a  principle  is  not  to  be 
found  m  our  law  books  or  systems  of  equity."  P.  166.  If  this 
point  does  not  depend  upon  numbers,  upon  what  does  it  depend  ? 
There  are  two  things  necessary  to  membership  in  a  religious  soci- 
ety, adherence  to  its  doctrines  and  submission  to  its  discipline. 
This  also  is  very  plain.  The  doctrines  of  many  religious  socie- 
ties are  the  same  ;  as,  for  example,  the  Reformed  Dutch,  the  Pres- 
byterian, the  German  Reformed.  A  member  of  the  one  is  not,  on 
that  account,  a  member  of  the  other.  And  though  he  maintains 
the  same  doctrines,  if  he  disconnect  himself  from  one  society  and 
either  joins,  or  in  connexion  with  others  organizes  another,  his 
membership  with  the  former,  and  all  the  rights  accruing  from  it, 
cease  of  course.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  quote  authorities  for  a 
truth  so  obvious.  When  a  certain  portion  of  the  Dutch  church 
withdrew  and  claimed  to  be  the  true  Reformed  Dutch  church,  the 
case  was  decided  against  them  on  this  very  ground.  They  had 
separated  from  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  church,  and 
thereby  forfeited  their  membership,  though  they  retained  their  doc- 
trines. "  These  persons,"  says  Chief  Justice  Ewing,  "  after  they 
withdrew,  did  not  continue  members  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
church  simply  because  they  held  the  same  religious  faith  and 
tenets  with  the  members  of  that  ecclesiastical  body."* 

Where  there  is  in  any  religious  society  a  regular  series  of 
depending  judicatories,  as  in  our  case,  the  session,  presbytery,  synod 

•  See  Halsted's  Reports,  vol.  vii.,  p.  214. 


THE    PREgBYTERIAK    CHURCH.  277 

and  General  Assembly,  the  question  of  membership  depends  on 
communion  with  the  supreme  judicatory.  A  session  or  presbytery, 
not  in  communion  with  the  true  General  Assembly,  is  not  a  session 
or  presbytery  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  In  the  society  of 
Friends  there  are  preparative,  monthly,  quarterly,  and  yearly 
meetings  in  regular  subordination ;  hence  a  preparative  meeting, 
not  in  connexion  with  the  regular  yearly  meeting,  does  not  belong 
to  that  society.  This  was  the  point  on  which  the  great  Quaker 
cnse,  so  often  referred  to,  principally  turned.  J.  H.,  the  treasurer 
of  the  preparative  meeting  of  Chesterfield,  had  loaned  $2000  to 
T.  S.,  the  interest  of  which  he  had  received  for  a  series  of  years. 
In  1828,  however,  a  schism  occurred  in  that  meeting.  One  party, 
the  orthodox,  withdrew,  the  other,  being  the  majority,  remained 
and  appointed  S.  D.  their  treasurer.  Here  then  were  two  trea- 
surers, both  claiming  the  right  to  receive  from  T.  S.  the  interest 
on  the  loan  of  $2000.  T.  S.  applies  to  the  Court  of  Chancery  to 
I  compel  them  to  decide  their  claims,  that  he  might  know  to  whom  to 
j  pay  the  money.  The  immediate  question  for  the  court  to  decide 
I  was,  who  was  the  true  treasurer ;  and  this  of  course  depended 
I  on  which  was  the  true  preparative  meeting.  To  determine  this 
it  was  inquired  which  is  in  connexion  with  the  yearly  meeting 
I  through  the  intervening  links  of  a  regular  monthly  and  quarterly 
I  meeting  ?  It  then  appeared  that  there  were  two  bodies  claiming 
to  be  the  regular  yearly  meeting,  the  one  meeting  in  Arch  street, 
j  the  other  in  Green  street,  Philadelphia.  The  preparative  meeting 
of  Chesterfield,  of  which  J.  H.  was  treasurer,  was  in  connexion 
!  with  the  former ;  that  of  which  S.  D.  was  treasurer,  was  in  con- 
nexion with  the  latter.  The  question  now  was,  which  was  the 
true  yearly  meeting  ?  the  orthodox  in  Arch  street,  or  the  Hicksites 
in  Green  street?  On  the  decision  of  this  question  the  whole  case 
depended.  It  appeared  that  for  more  than  a  hundred  years,  there 
had  been  a  yearly  meeting  of  the  society  in  Philadelphia,  con- 
tinued by  regular  appointment.  This  meeting  was  held  in  1827 
at  the  prescribed  time  and  place,  both  parties  being  present  and 
participating  in  the  business;  and  when  it  adjourned, it  was  appointed 
lo  meet  at  the  same  time  and  place  on  the  following  year.  Accord- 
ingly a  body  did  thus  meet  in  1828.  This  was  the  orthodox  meet- 
ing. In  the  meantime,  however,  the  opposite  party,  dissatisfied  with 
the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  of  1827,  had  appointed  a  yearly 
meeting  to  be  held  at  a  different  time  and  at  a  different  place  from 
those  prescribed  at  the  regular  adjournment  of  the  yearly  meeting 
of  1827.  Agreeably  to  this  appointment,  a  yearly  meeting  assem- 
bled in  Green  street,  claiming  to  be  the  ancient  yearly  meeting  of 
the  society  of  Friends.  Here  then  were  two  bodies  laying  claim 
to  the  same  character.  As  the  orthodox  meeting  in  Arch  street 
met  agreeably  to  adjournment,  at  the  time  and  place  regularly  pre- 
scribed, the  presumption  was  of  course  in  its  favour.  Those  who 
called  the  other  meeting,  and  its  defenders,  were  obliged  to  assume 
and  to  attempt  to  prove,  that  the  regular  yearly  meeting  of  1827. 


2td 


THE    DIVISION    OF 


had,  by  its  proceedings,  destroyed  itself,  and  therefore  that  the 
meeting  assembled  by  its  direction,  in  1^28,  was  not  the  regular 
successor  of  the  ancient  yearly  meeting  of  the  society.  As  they 
failed  in  this  attempt,  judgment  was  given  against  them. 

In  like  manner,  on  the  supposition  that  our  new-school  brethren 
should  organize  themselves  as  the  General  Assembly,  to  substan- 
tiate their  claim  they  must  prove  that  the  body  from  which  they 
withdrew  has  forfeited  its  legal  existence.  The  burden  must  lie 
on  them.  The  presumption  of  course  will  be  in  favour  of  the 
body  which  shall  assemble  agreeably  to  the  requisition  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  1837,  and  be  constituted  in  the  ordinary 
manner.  This  presumption  will  be  greatly  strengthened  by  the 
fact,  that  these  brethren  must  recognise  its  character,  by  claiming 
their  seats  in  it  as  the  General  Assembly.  They  will  be  driven 
therefore  to  prove  that  its  refusal  to  admit  them  destroys  its  nature, 
so  that  it  ceases  to  be  what  it  was  before  that  refusal,  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States.  It 
matters  not  where  the  controversy  about  property  may  begin ; 
whether  it  be  a  suit  between  two  sets  of  trustees  of  an  individual 
congregation,  or  between  two  men,  each  claiming  to  be  the  trea- 
surer of  the  General  Assembly ;  to  this  point  it  must  come,  and 
upon  this  hinge  the  case  must  turn.  Is  the  General  Assembly 
destroyed  by  its  refusal  to  acknowledge  the  rights  of  the  delegates 
from  mixed  presbyteries  to  take  their  seats  as  members  ?  Must  it 
continue  to  allow  Congregationalists  to  take  part  in  the  govern- 
ment of  our  church,  or  cease  to  be  the  General  Assembly  ? 

It  appears  from  what  has  already  been  said,  that  the  decision  of 
this  question  cannot  depend  upon  the  number  of  delegates  who  may 
choose  to  withdraw.  It  matters  not  whether  they  are  a  minority 
or  majority ;  if  they  have  a  quorum  behind,  it  is  the  General 
Assembly,  unless  it  can  be  proved  to  have  destroj^ed  itself.  As 
courts  of  chancery  have  the  right  to  protect  trusts  and  to  prevent 
their  abuse  or  perversion,  it  is  certainly  possible  for  the  highest 
authority  of  a  church  so  to  act  as  to  forfeit  its  claim  to  the  pro- 
perty of  the  society  which  it  represents.  In  order  to  this,  how- 
ever, it  must  openly  renounce  either  the  faith  or  discipline  of  the 
society.  Had  the  yearly  meeting  of  1827,  of  which  the  Hicksites 
complained,  and  from  which  they  separated,  declared  themselves 
Presbyterians  or  Episcopalians,  they  could  no  longer  be  regarded 
as  the  yearly  meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends.  Majorities  are 
not  omnipotent.  "They  have  no  power,"  says  Mr.  Wood,  "  to 
break  up  the  original  landmarks  of  the  institution.  They  have  no 
power  to  divert  the  property  held  by  them  in  their  social  capacity 
from  the  special  purpose  for  which  it  was  bestowed.  They  could 
not  turn  a  Baptist  society  into  a  Presbyterian  society,  or  a  Quaker 
into  an  Episcopalian  society.  They  could  not  pervert  an  institu- 
tion and  its  funds  formed  for  trinitarian  purposes,  to  anti-trinitarian 
purposes."  P.  53.  Mr.  Williamson  says,  "  If  the  superior  churches 
change  their  doctrines,  the  subordinate  ones  are  not  bound  to 


I 


THE    PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  279 

change  theirs.  If  a  part  of  the  head  changes  its  doctrines,  and  a 
part  of  the  subordinate  branches  change  theirs  also,  then  those 
who  separate  and  form  a  new  head,  will  lose  their  right  to  the  pro- 
perty ;  but  if  there  is  no  dispute  about  doctrine,  those  who  sepa- 
rate from  the  head  will  be  considered  as  seceders,  and  will  lose  the 
benefit  of  the  property.  If  the  whole  head  changes  its  religious 
principles,  the  society  which  separates  from  it,  and  adheres  to  the 
religious  principles  of  the  society,  will  not  lose  its  rights."  P.  165. 
A  case  strongly  confirming  this  last  position  is  cited  by  Mr.  Wood, 
p.  55.  A  large  part  of  a  congregation  left  the  jurisdiction  of  one 
of  the  Scotch  synods.  But  they  claimed  to  hold  the  property  on 
the  ground  that  they  were  the  true  church,  inasmuch  as  they 
adhered  to  the  original  doctrines  of  the  church,  and  they  alleged 
that  the  synod  had  departed  from  those  doctrines.  The  court 
below  decided  in  favour  of  the  party  who  still  adhered  to  the  synod. 
In  the  House  of  Lords  where  Lord  Eldon  presided,  the  court  under 
his  advice  decided,  that  if  these  allegations  of  the  seceders  were 
true,  they  were  entitled  to  the  property,  notwithstanding  their 
secession.  It  being  determined,  however,  that  there  was  no  depar- 
ture from  the  faith  of  the  church  on  the  part  of  the  synod,  judg- 
ment was  given  against  the  seceders.  We  admit,  therefore,  that 
it  is  possible  for  the  supreme  judicatory  of  the  church  to  take  such 
a  course  as  to  forfeit  their  character  and  authority,  and  to  justify 
a  portion  of  its  members  in  withdrawing  from  it  as  no  longer  the 
supreme  judicatory  of  the  church  to  which  they  belong.  It  is  obvi- 
ous, however,  that  nothing  short  of  such  a  dereliction  of  the 
doctrines  or  order  of  the  church  as  is  a  real  rejection  of  its  faith  or 
form  of  government,  can  work  such  a  result.  It  is  not  pretended 
that  the  Assembly  has  departed  from  the  doctrines  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith ;  the  only  question  therefore  can  be,  whether  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  delegates  from  mixed  presbyteries  is  so  inconsistent 
with  our  form  of  government,  that  the  Assembly,  which  decides  on 
such  a  measure,  ceases  to  be  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presby- 
terian church  ?  Nothing  short  of  this  will  suffice  to  establish  the 
claim  of  the  opposite  party.  **  If  this  new  society  have  separated 
from  us,"  says  Governor  Williamson,  "  if  they  have  withdrawn  ; 
if  they  cannot  show  that  the  original  meeting  was  dissolved,  they 
can  have  no  claim  to  the  property."  P.  164.  It  is  not  enough, 
therefore,  that  the  court  should  disapprove  of  any  particular  act  of 
the  Assembly,  thinking  it  uncalled  for  or  severe  ;  they  must  pro- 
nounce that  it  is  a  secession  from  the  Presbyterian  church  ;  that  it 
is  such  a  renunciation  of  its  doctrines  or  discipline  as  to  justify  its 
being  deprived  of  its  legal  existence  and  privileges.  As  the  simple 
question  is.  Which  of  the  conflicting  bodies  is  the  General  Assem- 
bly ?  the  new  one  cannot  be  recognised  as  such,  except  on  the 
assumption  that  the  old  one  is  destroyed  ;  destroyed  too  by  the  exer- 
cise of  an  undoubted  constitutional  right,  viz.  that  of  judging  of  the 
qualifications  of  its  own  members.  This  right  is  inherent  in  every 
representative  and  legislative  body,  and  is  essential  to  its  indepen- 


280'  ,  THE   DITISION    OF 

dence  and  purity.  It  is  a  right,  moreover,  from  the  exercise  of 
which  there  is  no  appeal.  To  whom  can  an  excluded  member 
of  the  House  of  Commons  look  for  redress  from  its  decision 
that  he  is  not  entitled  to  a  seat  ?  To  what  court  can  the  repre- 
sentatives elect  from  Mississippi  now  appeal  from  what  they 
regard  as  an  unjust  decision  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
denying  them  their  right  as  members  ?  What  would  our  religious 
liberties  be  worth,  if  this  privilege  were  denied  to  religious  bodies  ? 
if  they  were  not  allowed  to  say  who  do,  and  who  do  not  conform 
to  the  standards  of  their  church  ?  or  if  every  decision  of  an 
Episcopal  convention,  or  Methodist  conference,  were  liable  to  be 
brought  under  the  review  of  the  secular  courts  ?  "  While  the 
law,"  says  Mr.  Wood,  "  protects  individuals,  it  would  be  short- 
sighted indeed  if  it  did  not  protect  religious  societies  in  their  social 
capacity."  They  are  to  be  protected  in  the  maintenance  of  their 
doctrines  and  discipline,  and  in  the  preservation  of  their  property. 
"  How,"  he  asks,  "  are  they  to  be  protected  in  these  important 
particulars  ?  By  guaranteeing  to  them  the  power  of  purgation,  of 
lopping  off  dead  and  useless  branches,  of  clearing  out  those  who 
depart  essentially  from  the  fundamental  doctrines  and  discipline  of 
the  society."  P.  5.  That  is,  by  guaranteeing  to  them  the  right 
of  judging  of  the  qualifications  of  their  own  members.  This  right 
has  ever  been  respected.  "  In  determining  the  great  question  of 
secession  (and  of  course  of  membership)  the  court,"  says  the  same 
legal  authority,"  always  looks  to  the  highest  ecclesiastical  tribunal, 
which  exercises  a  superintending  control  over  the  inferior  judica- 
tories." P.  56.  He  refers  to  a  case  in  New  York,  in  which  it 
was  decided  "  that  the  adjudication  of  the  highest  ecclesiastical 
tribunal  upon  this  matter  (the  standing  and  membership  of  a  minis- 
ter) was  conclusive  on  the  subject."  He  quotes  also  from  Halsted*s 
Reports  to  prove  that  the  dissatisfied  party  cannot  get  clear  of 
such  decision  "by  changing  their  allegiance."  In  the  case 
referred  to.  Chief  Justice  Ewing  says,  that  civil  courts  are  bound 
to  give  respect  and  effect  to  the  constitutional  decisions  of  eccle- 
siastical judicatories,  "  without  inquiring  into  the  truth  or  suffici- 
ency of  the  alleged  grounds  of  the  sentence."  7  Halsted,  p.  220. 
"  The  decision  of  the  church  judicatory  would  not  be  final,  if 
we  may  afterwards  examine  its  merits.  .  .  .  If  we  ask,  as 
we  doubtless  may  do,  by  what  warrant  individuals  exercise  the 
powers  and  duties  of  ministers,  elders  and  deacons  (who  were  the 
trustees  of  the  property  in  controversy),  they  may  answer,  by  an 
election,  appointment,  or  call,  the  validity  of  which  has  been 
decided  and  sustained  by  the  superior  judicatory  to  which  the 
congregation  is  subordinate.  Such  being  the  fact,  ulterior  inquiry 
on  our  part  is  closed,  and  I  think  with  much  propriety  and  wisdom." 
P.  223.  There  would  be  no  security  for  church  property  if  this 
principle  were  not  admitted.  What  would  be  thought  of  a  decision 
which  should  strip  Trinity  Church  of  its  property  for  an  act 
sanctioned  as  regular  and  constitutional  by  all  the  authorities  of 


r 


THB   PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH.  281 


the  Episcopal  Church  ?  We  have  in  our  own  church  many  men 
who  are  avowed  anti-sectarians;  who  think  that  the  barriers 
which  separate  the  different  denominations  of  Christians  should  be 
broken  down.  It  is  a  possible  case,  that  men  of  these  opinions 
should  have  on  some  occasion,  an  accidental  majority  in  the 
General  Assembly.  Suppose  they  should  avail  themselves  of  the 
opportunity  to  enact  a  Plan  of  Union,  by  which,  not  the  favoured 
Congregationalist  only,  but  the  Episcopalian,  the  Baptist,  and  even 
the  Papist,  should  be  allowed  to  sit  and  vote  in  all  our  presbyteries. 
This  would  be  hailed  with  delight  by  many  as  the  commencement 
of  a  new  era,  as  the  adoption  of  "  a  principle  that  could  stand  the 
test  of  the  millennium."  Would  it  then  be  all  over  with  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  ?  Must  its  General  Assembly  forfeit  its  existence 
and  be  deprived  of  all  its  property,  should  it  repeal  this  Plan,  and 
refuse  to  recognise  presbyteries  thus  constituted  ?  We  have  no 
fear  that  any  decision  so  subversive  of  established  principles,  so 
destructive  of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  ecclesiastical  bodies  will 
ever  be  made. 

We  should  think  the  monstrous  injustice  of  any  decision  which 
could  answer  the  purpose  of  our  new-school  brethren,  must  alarm 
the  conscience  of  the  most  obdurate  man  in  the  country.  Here,  in 
the  event  supposed,  are  two  bodies  claiming  to  be  the  General 
Assembly.  The  one,  continued  by  regular  succession,  is  the  repre- 
sentative of  those  by  whom  almost  the  whole  of  the  property  held 
by  their  trustees  has  been  contributed.  The  other,  the  represent- 
ative of  some  three  or  four  hundred  Congregational  churches,  and 
of  about  an  equal  number  of  Presbyterian  ones,  most  of  which 
were  originally  Congregational.  It  is  proposed  to  apply  for  a 
decision  which  shall  declare  this  mixed  body  the  true  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  as  such  entitled  to  all  the  property  collected  and 
funded  by  the  other  party  !  And  for  what  reason  ?  Because  the 
regular  Assembly  has  resolved  not  to  allow  Congregationalists  to 
vote,  or  to  be  represented  in  Presbyterian  judicatories.  We  doubt 
not  that  every  good  man  on  the  opposite  side  would  rather  see 
the  property  at  the  bottom  of  the  ocean,  than  that  any  such  deci- 
sion should  be  made. 


ESSAY    X 


SLAVERY.' 


Every  one  must  be  sensible  that  a  very  great  change  has,  within 
a  few  years,  been  produced  in  the  feelings,  if  not  in  the  opinions 
of  the  public  in  relation  to  slavery.  It  is  not  long  since  the 
acknowledgment  was  frequent  at  the  south,  and  universal  at  the 
north,  that  it  was  a  great  evil.  It  was  spoken  of  in  the  slave- 
holding  states,  as  a  sad  inheritance  fixed  upon  them  by  the  cupidity 
of  the  mother-country  in  spite  of  their  repeated  remonstrances. 
The  known  sentiments  of  Jefferson  were  reiterated  again  and  again 
in  every  part  of  his  native  state  ;  and  some  of  the  strongest 
denunciations  of  this  evil,  and  some  of  the  most  ardent  aspirations 
for  deliverance  from  it  ever  uttered  in  the  country,  were  pro- 
nounced, but  a  few  years  since,  in  the  legislature  of  Virginia.  A 
propositioii  to  call  a  convention,  with  the  purpose  of  so  amending 
the  constitution  of  the  state  as  to  admit  of  the  general  emancipa- 
tion of  the  slaves,  is  said  to  have  failed  in  the  legislature  of  Ken- 
tucky by  a  single  vote.f  The  sentiments  of  the  northern  states 
had  long  since  been  clearly  expressed,  by  the  abolition  of  slavery 
within  their  limits.  That  the  same  opinions  and  the  same  feelings 
continued  to  prevail  among  them,  may  be  inferred,  not  only  from 
the  absence  of  all  evidence  to  the  contrary,  but  from  various 
decisive  indications  of  a  positive  character.  In  the  year  1828  a 
resolution  was  passed  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote  in  the  legisla- 
ture of  Pennsylvania,  instructing  their  Senators  in  Congress  to 
endeavour  to  procure  the  passage  of  a  law  abolishing  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia.  In  1829  a  similar  resolution  was  adopt- 
ed by  the  assembly  of  New  York.  In  1828  a  petition  to  this  effect 
was  presented  to  Congress,  signed  by  one  thousand  inhabitants  of 
the  District  itself ;  and  the  House  of  Representatives  instructed 
the  proper  committee,  in  1829,  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of 

•  Originally  published  in  1836,  in  review  of  "  Slavery.  By  William  E.  Chan- 
ning.'* 

t  It  is  probable  that  many  reasons  combined  to  make  a  convention  desirable  to 
those  who  voted  for  it.  But  to  get  rid  of  slavery,  was  said  to  be  one  of  the  most 
prominent. 


SLAVERY.         *  283 

the  measure.*  How  altered  is  the  present  state  of  the  country  ! 
Instead  of  lamentations  and  acknowledgments,  we  hear  from  the 
south  the  strongest  language  of  justification.  And  at  the  north, 
opposition  to  the  proceedings  of  the  anti-slavery  societies  seems 
to  be  rapidly  producing  a  public  feeling  in  favour  of  slavery  itself. 
The  freedom  of  discussion,  the  liberty  of  the  press,  and  the 
right  of  assembling  for  consultation,  have  in  some  cases-*  been 
assailed,  and  in  others  trampled  under  foot  by  popular  violence. 
What  has  produced  this  lamentable  change?  No  doubl,  many 
circumstances  have  combined  in  its  production.  We  think,  how- 
ever, that  all  impartial  observers  must  acknowledge,  that  by  far 
the  most  prominent  cause  is  the  conduct  of  the  abolitionists.  They 
indeed  naturally  resist  this  imputation  ;  and  endeavour  to  show  its 
injustice  by  appealing  to  the  fact  that  their  opinions  of  slavery  have 
been  entertained  and  expressed  by  many  of  the  best  men  of  former 
days.  This  appeal,  however,  is  by  no  means  satisfactory.  The 
evil  in  question  has  been  produced  by  no  mere  expression  of 
opinion.  Had  the  abolitionists  confined  themselves  to  their  pro- 
fessed object,  and  endeavoured  to  effect  their  purpose  by  arguments 
addressed  to  the  understandings  and  consciences  of  their  fellow- 
citizens,  no  man  could  have  any  reason  to  complain.  Under  ordi* 
nary  circumstances,  such  arguments  as  those  presented  on  this 
subject  in  Dr.  Wayland's  Elements  of  Moral  Science,  and  in  Dr. 
Channing's  recent  publication,  would  have  been  received  with 
respect  and  kindness  in  every  part  of  the  country.  We  make  this 
assertion,  because  the  same  sentiments,  more  offensively,  and  less 
ably  urged,  have  heretofore  been  thus  received. 

It  is  not  by  argument  that  the  abolitionists  have  produced  the 
present  unhappy  excitement.  Argument  has  not  been  the  charac- 
teristic of  their  publications.  Denunciations  of  slaveholding,  as 
man-stealing,  robbery,  piracy,  and  worse  than  murder  ;  consequent 
vituperation  of  slaveholders  as  knowingly  guilty  of  the  worst  of 
crimes  ;  passionate  appeals  to  the  feelings  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
northern  states  ;  gross  exaggerations  of  the  moral  and  physical 
condition  of  the  slaves,  have  formed  the  staple  of  their  addresses 
to  the  public.  We  do  not  mean  to  say  that  there  has  been  no 
calm  and  Christian  discussion  of  the  subject.  We  mean  merely  to 
state  what  has,  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge,  been  the  predominant 
character  of  the  anti-slavery  publications.  There  is  one  circum- 
stance which  renders  the  error  and  guilt  of  this  course  of  conduct 
chargeable,  in  a  great  measure,  on  the  abolitionists  as  a  body,  and 
even  upon  those  of  their  number  who  have  pursued  a  different 
course.  We  refer  to  the  fact  that  they  have  upheld  the  most 
extreme  publications,  and  made  common  cause  with  the  most 
reckless  declaimers.  The  wildest  ravings  of  the  Liberator  have 
been  constantly  lauded  ;  agents  have  been  commissioned  whose 
great  distinction  was  a  talent  for  eloquent  vituperation  ;  coincidence 
of  opinion  as  to  the  single  point  of  immediate  emancipation  hai 

♦  Jay's  Inquiry,  pp.  157, 161. 


284  SLAVERY. 

been  sufficient  to  unite  men  of  the  most  discordant  character. 
There  is  in  this  conduct  such  a  strange  want  of  adaptation 
between  the  means  and  the  end  which  they  profess  to  have  in 
view,  as  to  stagger  the  faith  of  most  persons  in  the  sincerity  of 
their  professions,  who  do  not  consider  the  extremes  to  which  even 
good  men  may  be  carried,  when  they  allow  one  subject  to  take 
exclusive  possession  of  their  minds.  We  do  not  doubt  their  sin- 
cerity ;  but  we  marvel  at  their  delusion.  They  seem  to  have 
been  led  by  the  mere  impulse  of  feeling,  and  a  blind  imitation  of 
their  predecessors  in  England,  to  a  course  of  measures,  which, 
though  rational  under  one  set  of  circumstances,  is  the  height 
of  infatuation  under  another.  The  English  abolitionists  addressed 
themselves  to  a  community,  which,  though  it  owned  no  slaves, 
had  the  power  to  abolish  slavery,  and  was  therefore  responsible 
for  its  continuance.  Their  object  was  to  rouse  that  community  to 
immediate  action.  For  this  purpose  they  addressed  themselves 
to  the  feelings  of  the  people  ;  they  portrayed  in  the  strongest 
colours  the  misery  of  the  slaves  ;  they  dilated  on  the  gratuitous 
crime  of  which  England  was  guilty  in  perpetuating  slavery,  and 
did  all  they  could  to  excite  the  passions  of  the  public.  This  was  the 
very  course  most  likely  to  succeed,  and  it  did  succeed.  Suppose, 
however,  that  the  British  parliament  had  no  power  over  the  subject; 
that  it  rested  entirely  with  the  colonial  Assemblies  to  decide  whether 
slavery  should  be  abolished  or  not.  Does  any  man  believe  the 
abolitionists  would  have  gained  their  object  ?  Did  they  in  fact 
make  converts  of  the  planters  ?  Did  they  even  pretend  that  such 
was  their  design?  Every  one  knows  that  their  conduct  pro- 
duced a  state  of  almost  frantic  excitement  in  the  West  India 
Islands  ;  that  so  far  from  the  public  feeling  in  England  producing 
a  moral  impression  upon  the  planters  favourable  to  the  condition 
of  the  slaves,  its  effect  was  directly  the  reverse.  It  excited  them 
to  drive  away  the  missionaries,  to  tear  down  the  chapels,  to  mani- 
fest a  determination  to  rivet  still  more  firmly  the  chains  on  their 
helpless  captives,  and  to  resist  to  the  utmost  all  attempts  for  their 
emancipation  or  even  improvement.  All  this  was  natural,  though 
it  was  all,  under  the  circumstances,  of  no  avail,  except  to  rouse  the 
spirit  of  the  mother  country,  and  to  endanger  the  result  of  the 
experiment  of  emancipation,  by  exasperating  the  feelings  of  the 
slaves.  Precisely  similar  has  been  the  result  of  the  efforts  of  the 
American  abolitionists  as  it  regarded  the  slaveholders  of  America. 
They  have  produced  a  state  of  alarming  exasperation  at  the  south, 
injurious  to  the  slave  and  dangerous  to  the  country,  while  they 
have  failed  to  enlist  the  feelings  of  the  north.  This  failure  has 
resulted,  not  so  much  from  diversity  of  opinion  on  the  abstract 
question  of  slavery,  or  from  want  of  sympathy  among  northern 
men  in  the  cause  of  human  rights,  as  from  the  fact,  that  the  com- 
mon sense  of  the  public  has  been  shocked  by  the  incongruity  and 
folly  of  hoping  to  effect  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  one  country,  by 
addressing  the  people  of  another.     We  do  not  expect  to  abolish  des- 


SLATERY.  285 

potism  in  Russia,  by  getting  up  indignation-meetings  in  New  York. 
Yet  for  all  the  purposes  of  legislation  on  this  subject,  Russia  is  not 
more  a  foreign  country  to  us  than  South  Carolina.  The  idea  of  induc- 
ing the  southern  slaveholder  to  emancipate  his  slaves  by  denuncia- 
tion, is  about  as  rational  as  to  expect  the  sovereigns  of  Europe  to 
grant  free  institutions,  by  calling  them  tyrants  and  robbers.  Could 
we  send  our  denunciations  of  despotism  among  the  subjects  of  those 
monarchs,  and  rouse  the  people  to  a  sense  of  their  wrongs  and  a 
determination  to  redress  them,  there  would  be  some  prospect  of 
success.  But  our  northern  abolitionists  disclaim  with  great  ear- 
nestness all  intention  of  allowing  their  appeals  to  reach  the  ears 
of  the  slaves.  It  is  therefore  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  the 
course  pursued  by  the  anti-slavery  societies  should  produce  exas- 
peration at  the  south,  without  conciliating  sympathy  at  the  north. 
The  impolicy  of  their  conduct  is  so  obvious,  that  men  who  agree 
with  them  as  to  all  their  leading  principles,  not  only  stand  aloof 
from  their  measures,  but  unhesitatingly  condemn  their  conduct. 
This  is  the  case  with  Dr.  Channing.  Although  his  book  was  writ- 
ten rather  to  repress  the  feeling  of  opposition  to  these  societies, 
than  to  encourage  it,  yet  he  fully  admits  the  justice  of  the  principal 
charges  brought  against  them.  We  extract  a  few  passages  on  this 
subject.  "  The  abolitionists  have  done  wrong,  I  believe ;  nor  is 
their  wrong  to  be  winked  at,  because  done  fanatically,  or  with 
good  intentions  ;  for  how  much  mischief  may  be  wrought  with 
good  designs  !  They  have  fallen  into  the  common  error  of  enthu- 
siasts, that  of  exaggerating  their  object,  of  feeling  as  if  no  evil 
existed  but  that  which  they  opposed,  and  as  if  no  guilt  could  be 
compared  with  that  of  countenancing  and  upholding  it.  The  tone 
of  their  newspapers,  as  far  as  I  have  seen  them,  has  often  been 
fierce,  bitter,  and  abusive."  P.  133.  "Another  objection  to  their 
movements  is,  that  they  have  sought  to  accomplish  their  object  by 
a  system  of  agitation ;  that  is,  by  a  system  of  affiliated  societies 
gathered,  and  held  together,  and  extended,  by  passionate  elo- 
quence." "  The  abolitionists  might  have  formed  an  association ; 
but  it  should  have  been  an  elective  one.  Men  of  strong  princi- 
ples, judiciousness,  sobriety,  should  have  been  carefully  sought  as 
members.  Much  good  might  have  been  accomplished  by  the  co- 
operation of  such  philanthropists.  Instead  of  this,  the  abolition- 
ists sent  forth  their  orators,  some  of  them  transported  with  fiery 
zeal  to  sound  the  alarm  against  slavery  through  the  land,  to  gather 
together  young  and  old,  pupils  from  schools,  females  hardly  arrived 
at  years  of  discretion,  the  ignorant,  the  excitable,  the  impetuous,  and 
to  organize  these  into  associations  for  the  battle  against  oppression. 
Very  unhappily  they  preached  their  doctrine  to  the  coloured  people, 
and  collected  these  into  societies.  To  this  mixed  and  excitable  mul- 
titude, minute,  heart-rending  descriptions  of  slavery  were  given  in  the 
piercing  tones  of  passion  ;  and  slaveholders  were  held  up  as  mon- 
sters of  cruelty  and  crime."  P.  136.  "  The  abolitionists  often  speak 
of  Luther's  vehemence  as  a  model  to  future  reformers.     But  who, 


286  SLAVERY. 

that  has  read  history,  does  not  know  that  Luther's  reformation  was 
accompanied  by  tremendous  miseries  and  crimes,  and  that  its  pro- 
gress was  soon  arrested  ?  and  is  there  not  reason  to  fear,  that  the 
fierce,  bitter,  persecuting  spirit,  which  he  breathed  into  the  work, 
not  only  tarnished  its  glory,  but  limited  its  power  ?  One  great 
principle  which  we  should  lay  down  as  immovably  true,  is,  that  if 
a  good  work  cannot  be  carried  on  by  the  calm,  self-controlled, 
benevolent  spirit  of  Christianity,  then  the  time  for  doing  it  has  not 
come.  God  asks  not  the  aid  of  our  vices.  He  can  overrule  them 
for  good,  but  they  are  not  the  chosen  instruments  of  human  hap- 
piness." P.  138.  "The  adoption  of  the  common  system  of  agita- 
tion by  the  abolitionists  has  proved  signally  unsuccessful.  From 
the  beginning  it  created  alarm  in  the  considerate,  and  strengthened 
the  sympathies  of  the  free  slates  with  the  slaveholder.  It  made 
converts  of  a  few  individuals,  but  alienated  multitudes.  Its  influ- 
ence at  the  south  has  been  evil  without  mixture.  It  has  stirred 
up  bitter  passions  and  a  fierce  fanaticism,  which  have  shut 
every  ear  and  every  heart  against  its  arguments  and  persuasions. 
These  eflfects  are  the  more  to  be  deplored,  because  the  hope  of 
freedom  to  the  slave  lies  chiefly  in  the  dispositions  of  his  master. 
The  abolitionist  indeed  proposed  to  convert  the  slaveholders ;  and 
for  this  end  he  approached  them  with  vituperation  and  exhausted 
on  them  the  vocabulary  of  abuse !  And  he  has  reaped  as  he 
sowed."  P.  142. 

Unmixed  good  or  evil,  however,  in  such  a  world  as  ours,  is  a 
very  rare  thing.  Though  the  course  pursued  by  the  abolitionists 
has  produced  a  great  preponderance  of  mischief,  it  may  incident- 
ally occasion  no  little  good.  It  has  rendered  it  incumbent  on 
every  man  to  endeavour  to  obtain,  and,  as  far  as  he  can,  to  com- 
municate definite  opinions  and  correct  principles  on  the  whole 
subject.  The  community  are  very  apt  to  sink  down  into  indiflfe- 
rence  to  a  state  of  things  of  long  continuance,  and  to  content  them- 
selves with  vague  impressions  as  to  right  and  wrong  on  important 
points,  when  there  is  no  call  for  immediate  action.  From  this 
state  the  abolitionists  have  eflfectually  roused  the  public  mind. 
The  subject  of  slavery  is  no  longer  one  on  which  men  are  allowed 
to  be  of  no  mind  at  all.  The  question  is  brought  up  before  all  our 
public  bodies,  civil  and  religious.  Almost  every  ecclesiastical 
society  has  in  some  way  been  called  to  express  an  opinion  on  the 
subject;  and  these  calls  are  constantly  repeated.  Under  these 
circumstances,  it  is  the  duty  of  all  in  their  appropriate  sphere,  to 
seek  for  truth,  and  to  utter  it  in  love. 

"  The  first  question,"  says  Dr.  Channing,  "  to  be  proposed  by  a 
rational  being,  is  not  what  is  profitable,  but  what  is  right.  Duty 
must  be  primary,  prominent,  most  conspicuous,  among  the  objects 
of  human  thought  and  pursuit.  If  we  cast  it  down  from  its  supre- 
macy, if  we  inquire  first  for  our  interests  and  then  for  our  duties, 
we  shall  certainly  err.  We  can  never  see  the  right  clearly  and 
fully,  but  by  making  it  our  first  concern Right  is  the 


SLAVERY.  287 

supreme  good,  and  includes  all  other  goods.  In  seeking  and 
adhering  to  it,  we  secure  our  true  and  only  happiness.  All  pros- 
perity, not  founded  on  it,  is  built  on  sand.  If  human  affairs  are 
controlled,  as  we  believe,  by  almighty  rectitude  and  impartial 
goodness,  then  to  hope  for  happiness  from  wrong  doing  is  as  insane 
as  to  seek  health  and  prosperity  by  rebelling  against  the  laws  of 
nature,  by  sowing  our  seed  on  the  ocean,  or  making  poison  our 
common  food.  There  is  but  one  unfailing  good;  and  that  is, 
fidelity  to  the  everlasting  law  written  on  the  heart,  and  re-written 
and  republished  in  God's  word. 

"  Whoever  places  this  faith  in  the  everlasting  law  of  rectitude 
must,  of  course,  regard  the  question  of  slavery,  first  and  chiefly, 
as  a  moral  question.  All  other  considerations  will  weigh  little 
with  him  compared  with  its  moral  character  and  moral  influences. 
The  following  remarks,  therefore,  are  designed  to  aid  the  reader 
in  forming  a  just  moral  judgment  of  slavery.  Great  truths,  inalien- 
able rights,  everlasting  duties,  these  will  form  the  chief  subjects 
of  this  discussion.  There  are  times  when  the  assertion  of  great 
principles  is  the  best  service  a  man  can  render  society.  The  pre- 
sent is  a  moment  of  bewildering  excitement,  when  men's  minds 
are  stormed  and  darkened  by  strong  passions  and  fierce  conflicts ; 
and  also  a  moment  of  absorbing  worldliness,  when  the  moral  law 
is  made  to  bow  to  expediency,  and  its  high  and  strict  requirements 
are  decried  or  dismissed  as  metaphysical  abstractions,  or  imprac- 
ticable theories.  At  such  a  season  to  utter  great  principles  with- 
out passion,  and  in  the  spirit  of  unfeigned  and  universal  good  will, 
and  to  engrave  them  deeply  and  durably  on  men's  minds,  is  to  do 
more  for  the  world  than  to  open  mines  of  wealth,  or  to  frame  the 
most  successful  schemes  of  policy." 

No  man  can  refuse  assent  to  these  principles.  The  great  ques- 
tion, therefore,  in  relation  to  slavery  is,  what  is  right  ?  What  are 
the  moral  principles  which  should  control  our  opinions  and  con- 
duct in  regard  to  it  ?  Before  attempting  an  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion, it  is  proper  to  remark,  that  we  recognise  no  authoritative  rule 
of  truth  and  duty  but  the  word  of  God.  Plausible  as  may  be  the 
arguments  deduced  from  general  principles  to  prove  a  thing  to  be 
true  or  false,  right  and  wrong,  there  is  almost  always  room  for 
doubt  and  honest  diversity  of  opinion.  Clear  as  we  may  think  the 
arguments  against  despotism,  there  ever  have  been  thousands  of 
enlightened  and  good  men,  who  honestly  believe  it  to  be  of  all 
forms  of  government  the  best  and  most  acceptable  to  God.  Un- 
less we  can  approach  the  consciences  of  men,  clothed  with  some 
more  imposing  authority  than  that  of  our  own  opinions  and  argu- 
ments, we  shall  gain  little  permanent  influence.  Men  are  too 
nearly  upon  a  par  as  to  their  powers  of  reasoning  and  ability  to 
discover  truth,  to  make  the  conclusions  of  one  mind  an  authorita- 
tive rule  for  others.  It  is  our  object,  therefore,  not  to  discuss  the 
subject  of  slavery  upon  abstract  principles,  but  to  ascertain  the 
scriptural  rule  of  judgment  and  conduct  in  relation  to  it     We  do 


SLAVERY. 

not  intend  to  enter  upon  any  minute  or  extended  examination  of 
scriptural  passages,  because  all  that  we  wish  to  assume,  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  of  God,  is  so  generally  admitted  as  to  render 
the  laboured  proof  of  it  unnecessary. 

It  is  on  all  hands  acknowledged  that  at  the  time  of  the  advent 
of  Jesus  Christ,  slavery  in  its  worst  forms  prevailed  over  the 
whole  world.  The  Saviour  found  it  around  him  in  Judea ;  the 
apostles  met  with  it  in  Asia,  Greece  and  Italy.  How  did  they 
treat  it  ?  Not  by  the  denunciation  of  slave-holding  as  necessarily 
and  universally  sinful.  Not  by  declaring  that  all  slaveholders 
were  men-stealers  and  robbers,  and  consequently  to  be  excluded 
from  the  church  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Not  by  insisting  on 
immediate  emancipation.  Not  by  appeals  to  the  passions  of  men 
on  the  evils  of  slavery,  or  by  the  adoption  of  a  system  of  univer- 
sal agitation.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  by  teaching  the  true  nature, 
dignity,  equality  and  destiny  of  men  ;  by  inculcating  the  principles 
of  justice  and  love ;  and  by  leaving  these  principles  to  produce 
their  legitimate  effects  in  meliorating  the  condition  of  all  classes 
of  society.  We  need  not  stop  to  prove  that  such  was  the  course 
pursued  by  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles,  because  the  fact  is  in 
general  acknowledged,  and  various  reasons  are  assigned  by  the 
abolitionists  and  others,  to  account  for  it.  The  subject  is  hardly 
alluded  to  by  Christ  in  any  of  his  personal  instructions.  The 
apostles  refer  to  it,  not  to  pronounce  upon  it  as  a  question  of 
morals,  but  to  prescribe  the  relative  duties  of  masters  and  slaves. 
They  caution  those  slaves  who  have  believing  or  Christian  mas- 
ters, not  to  despise  them  because  they  were  on  a  perfect  religious 
equality  with  them,  but  to  consider  the  fact  that  their  masters 
were  their  brethren,  as  an  additional  reason  for  obedience.  It  is 
remarkable  that  there  is  not  even  an  exhortation  to  masters  to 
liberate  their  slaves,  much  less  is  it  urged  as  an  imperative  and 
immediate  duty.  They  are  commanded  to  be  kind,  merciful  and 
just ;  and  to  remember  that  they  have  a  Master  in  heaven.  Paul 
represents  this  relation  as  of  comparatively  little  account.  "  Let 
every  man  abide  in  the  same  calling  wherein  he  was  called.  Art 
thou  called  being  a  servant  (or  slave),  care  not  for  it ;  though, 
should  the  opportunity  of  freedom  be  presented,  embrace  it. 
These  external  relations,  however,  are  of  little  importance,  for 
every  Christian  is  a  freeman  in  the  highest  and  best  sense  of  the 
word,  and  at  the  same  time  is  under  the  strongest  bonds  to  Christ." 
1  Cor.  vii.,  20-22.  It  is  not  worth  while  to  shut  our  eyes  to 
these  facts.  They  will  remain,  whether  we  refuse  to  see  them 
and  be  instructed  by  them  or  not.  If  we  are  wiser,  better,  more 
courageous  than  Christ  and  his  apostles,  let  us  say  so  ;  but  it  will 
do  no  good,  under  a  paroxysm  of  benevolence,  to  attempt  to  tear 
the  Bible  to  pieces,  or  to  extort,  by  violent  exegesis,  a  meaning 
foreign  to  its  obvious  sense.  Whatever  inferences  may  be  fairly 
deducible  from  the  fact,  the  fact  itself  cannot  be  denied  that  Christ 
and  his  inspired  followers  did  treat  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the 


SLAVERY.  289 

manner  stated  above.  This  being  the  case,  we  ought  carefully  to 
consider  their  conduct  in  this  respect,  and  inquire  what  lessons 
that  conduct  should  teach  us. 

We  think  no  one  will  deny  that  the  plan  adopted  by  the  Saviour 
and  his  immediate  followers  must  be  the  correct  plan,  and  there- 
fore obligatory  upon  us,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  their  circum- 
stances were  so  different  from  ours,  as  to  make  the  rule  of  duty 
different  in  the  two  cases.  The  obligation  to  point  out  and  esta- 
blish this  difference  rests  of  course  upon  those  who  have  adopted 
a  course  diametrically  the  reverse  of  that  which  Christ  pursued. 
They  have  not  acquitted  themselves  of  this  obligation.  They  do 
not  seem  to  have  felt  it  necessary  to  reconcile  their  conduct  with 
his  ;  nor  does  it  appear  to  have  occurred  to  them,  that  their  violent 
denunciation  of  slaveholding  and  of  slaveholders  is  an  indirect 
.  reflection  on  his  wisdom,  virtue,  or  courage.  If  the  present  course 
of  the  abolitionists  is  right,  then  the  course  of  Christ  and  the  apos- 
tles was  wrong.  For  the  circugistances  of  the  two  cases  are,  as  far 
as  we  can  see,  in  all  essential  particulars  the  same.  They  appeared 
as  teachers  of  morality  and  religion,  not  as  politicians.  The  same 
is  the  fact  with  our  abolitionists.  They  found  slavery  authorized 
by  the  laws  of  the  land.  So  do  we.  They  were  called  upon  to 
receive  into  the  communion  of  the  Christian  Church,  both  slave- 
owners and  slaves.  So  are  we.  They  instructed  these  different 
classes  of  persons  as  to  their  respective  duties.  So  do  we.  Where 
then  is  the  difference  between  the  two  cases  ?  If  we  are  right  in 
insisting  that  slaveholding  is  one  of  the  greatest  of  all  sins ;  that  it 
should  be  immediately  and  universally  abandoned  as  a  condition  of 
church  communion,  or  admission  into  heaven  ;  how  comes  it  that 
Christ  and  his  apostles  did  not  pursue  the  same  course  ?  We  see 
no  way  of  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  the  conduct  of  the 
modern  abolitionists,  being  directly  opposed  to  that  of  the  authors 
of  our  religion,  must  be  wrong,  and  ought  to  be  modified  or  aban- 
doned. 

An  equally  obvious  deduction  from  the  fact  above  referred  to,  is, 
that  slaveholding  is  not  necessarily  sinful.  The  assumption  of  the 
contrary  is  the  great  reason  why  the  modern  abolitionists  have 
adopted  their  peculiar  course.  They  argue  thus  :  slaveholding  is 
under  all  circumstances  sinful ;  it  must,  therefore,  under  all  circum- 
stances, and  at  all  hazards,  be  immediately  abandoned.  '  This  rea- 
soning is  perfectly  conclusive.  If  there  is  error  anywhere,  it  is  in 
the  premises  and  not  in  the  deduction.  It  requires  no  argument  to 
show  that  sin  ought  to  be  at  once  abandoned.  Everything,  there- 
fore, is  conceded  which  the  abolitionists  need  require,  when  it  is 
granted  that  slaveholding  is  in  itself  a  crime.  But  how  can  this 
assumption  be  reconciled  with  the  conduct  of  Christ  and  the  apos- 
tles ?  Did  they  shut  their  eyes  to  the  enormities  of  a  great  offence 
against  God  and  man  ?  Did  they  temporize  with  a  heinous  evil 
because  it  was  common  and  popular  ?  Did  they  abstain  from  even 
exhorting  masters  to  emancipate  their  slaves,  though  an  imperative 
19 


290  SLAVERY. 

duty,  from  fear  of  consequences  ?  Did  they  admit  the  perpetrators 
of  the  greatest  crimes  to  the  Christian  communion?  Who  will 
undertake  to  charge  the  blessed  Redeemer  and  his  inspired  follow- 
ers with  such  connivance  at  sin,  and  such  fellowship  with  iniquity  ? 
Were  drunkards,  murderers,  liars,  and  adulterers,  thus  treated  ? 
Were  they  passed  over  without  even  an  exhortation  to  forsake 
their  sins  ?  Were  they  recognised  as  Christians  ?  It  cannot  be 
that  slaveholding  belongs  to  the  same  category  with  these  crimes ; 
and  to  assert  the  contrary  is  to  assert  that  Christ  is  the  minister 
of  sin. 

This  is  a  point  of  so  much  importance,  lying  as  it  does  at  the 
very  foundation  of  the  whole  subject,  that  it  deserves  to  be  atten- 
tively considered.  The  grand  mistake,  as  we  apprehend,  of  those 
who  maintain  that  slaveholding  is  itself  a  crime,  is,  that  they  do 
not  discriminate  between  slaveholding  in  itself  considered,  and  its 
accessories  at  any  particular  time  or  place.  Because  masters  may 
treat  their  slaves  unjustly,  or  gover^iments  make  oppressive  laws 
in  relation  to  them,  is  no  more  a  valid  argument  against  the  law- 
fulness of  slaveholding,  than  the  abuse  of  parental  authority,  or  the 
unjust  political  laws  of  certain  states,  is  an  argument  against  the 
lawfulness  of  the  parental  relation,  or  of  civil  government.  This 
confusion  of  points  so  widely  distinct,  appears  to  us  to  run  through 
almost  all  the  popular  publications  on  slavery,  and  to  vitiate  their 
arguments.  Mr.  Jay,  for  example,  quotes  the  second  article  of  the 
constitution  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  which  declares 
that  "  slaveholding  is  a  heinous  crime  in  the  sight  of  God,"  and  then, 
to  justify  this  declaration,  makes  large  citations  from  the  laws  of 
the  several  southern  States,  to  show  what  the  system  of  slavery  is 
in  this  country,  and  concludes  by  saying,  "  This  is  the  system 
which  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  declares  to  be  sinful, 
and  ought  therefore  to  be  immediately  aboUshed."  There  is,  how- 
ever, no  necessary  connexion  between  his  premises  and  conclusion. 
We  may  admit  all  those  laws  which  forbid  the  instruction  of  slaves  ; 
which  interfere  with  their  marital  or  parental  rights  ;  which  sub- 
ject them  to  the  insults  and  oppression  of  the  whites,  to  be  in  the 
highest  degree  unjust,  without  at  all  admitting  that  slaveholding 
itself  is  a  crime.  Slavery  may  exist  without  any  one  of  these  con- 
comitants. In  pronouncing  on  the  moral  character  of  an  act,  it  is 
obviously  necessary  to  have  a  clear  idea  of  what  it  is  ;  yet  how  few 
of  those  who  denounce  slavery  have  any  well  defined  conception 
of  its  nature  !  They  have  a  confused  idea  of  chains  and  whips,  of 
degradation  and  misery,  of  ignorance  and  vice,  and  to  this  complex 
conception  they  apply  the  name  slavery,  and  denounce  it  as  the 
aggregate  of  all  moral  and  physical  evil.  Do  such  persons  suppose 
that  slavery  as  it  existed  in  the  family  of  Abraham,  was  such  as  their 
imaginations  thus  picture  to  themselves  ?  Might  not  that  patri- 
arch have  had  men  purchased  with  his  silver,  who  were  well 
clothed,  well  instructed,  well  compensated  for  their  labour,  and  in 
all  respects  treated  with  parental  kindness  ?    Neither  inadequate 


SLAVERY.  291 

remuneration,  physical  discomfort,  intellectual  ignorance,  moral 
degradation,  is  essential  to  the  condition  of  a  slave.  Yet  if  all 
these  ideas  are  removed  from  the  commonly  received  notion  of 
slavery,  how  little  w\\\  remain.  All  the  ideas  v^^hich  necessa- 
rily enter  into  the  definition  of  slavery  are  deprivation  of  personal 
liberty,  obligation  of  service  at  the  discretion  of  another,  and  the 
transferable  character  of  the  authority  and  claim  of  service  of 
the  master.*  The  manner  in  which  men  are  brought  into  this 
condition,  its  continuance,  and  the  means  adopted  for  securing  the 
authority  and  claim  of  masters,  are  all  incidental  and  variable. 
They  may  be  reasonable  or  unreasonable,  just  or  unjust,  at  differ- 
ent times  and  places.  The  question,  therefore,  v^^hich  the  abolition- 
ists have  undertaken  to  decide,  is,  not  whether  the  laws  enacted  in 
the  slaveholding  states  in  relation  to  this  subject  are  just  or  not, 
but  whether  slaveholding,  in  itself  considered,  is  a  crime.  The 
confusion  of  these  two  points  has  not  only  brought  the  abolitionists 
into  conflict  with  the  scriptures,  but  it  has,  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence, prevented  their  gaining  the  confidence  of  the  north,  or 
power  over  the  conscience  of  the  south.  When  southern  Chris- 
tians are  told  that  they  are  guilty  of  a  heinous  crime,  worse  than 
piracy,  robbery  or  murder,  because  they  hold  slaves,  though 
they  know  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  never  denounced  slave- 
holding  as  a  crime,  never  called  upon  men  to  renounce  it  as  a 
condition  of  admission  into  the  church,  they  are  shocked  and 
offended,  without  being  convinced.  They  are  sure  that  their 
accusers  cannot  be  wiser  or  better  than  their  divine  Master,  and 
their  consciences  are  untouched  by  denunciations  which  they  know, 
if  well  founded,  must  affect  not  them  only,  but  the  authors  of  the 
religion  of  the  Bible. 

The  argument  frgm  the  conduct  of  Christ  and  his  immediate 
followers  seems  to  us  decisive  on  the  point,  that  slaveholding,  in 
itself  considered,  is  not  a  crime.  Let  us  see  how  this  argument 
has  been  answered.  In  the  able  "  Address  to  the  Presbyterians  of 
Kentucky,  proposing  a  plan  for  the  instruction  and  emancipation 
of  their  slaves,  by  a  committee  of  the  synod  of  Kentucky,"  there 
is  a  strong  and  extended  argument  to  prove  the  sinfulness  of  slavery 
as  it  exists  among  uSj  to  which  we  have  little  to  object.  When, 
however,  the  distinguished  drafter  of  that  address  comes  to  answer 
the  objection,  "  God's  word  sanctions  slavery,  and  it  cannot  there- 
fore be  sinful,"  he  forgets  the  essential  limitation  of  the  proposition 
which  he  had  undertaken  to  establish,  and  proceeds  to  prove  that 
the  Bible  condemns  slaveholding,  and  not  merely  the  kind  or  sys- 
tem of  slavery  which  prevails  in  this  country.  The  argument 
drawn  from  the  scriptures,  he  says,  needs  no  elaborate  reply.  If 
the  Bible  sanctions  slavery,  it  sanctioned  the  kind  of  slavery  which 
then  prevailed  ;  the  atrocious  system  which  authorized  masters  to 

•  •  Paley's  definition  is  still  more  simple :  "  I  define,"  he  says,  **  slavery  to  be  an 
obligation  to  labour  for  the  benefit  of  the  master,  without  the  contract  or  consent  of 
the  servant."    Moral  Philosophy,  book  iii.,  ch.  3. 


292  SLAVERY. 

starve  their  slaves,  to  torture  them,  to  beat  them,  to  put  them  to 
death,  and  to  throw  them  into  their  fish  ponds.  And  he  justly  asks, 
whether  a  man  could  insult  the  God  of  heaven  worse  than  by  say- 
ing he  does  not  disapprove  of  such  a  system  ?  Dr.  Channing  pre- 
sents strongly  the  same  view,  and  says,  that  an  infidel  would  be 
labouring  in  his  vocation  in  asserting  that  the  Bible  does  not  con- 
demn slavery.  These  gentlemen,  however,  are  far  too  clear-sighted 
not  to  discover,  on  a  moment's  reflection,  that  they  have  allowed 
their  benevolent  feelings  to  blind  them  to  the  real  point  at  issue. 
No  one  denies  that  the  Bible  condemns  all  injustice,  cruelty,  oppres- 
sion, and  violence.  And  just  so  far  as  the  laws  then  existing  author- 
ized these  crimes  the  Bible  condemned  them.  But  what  stronger 
argument  can  be  presented  to  prove  that  the  sacred  writers  did 
not  regard  slaveholding  as  in  itself  sinful,  than  that  while  they  con- 
demn all  unjust  or  unkind  treatment  (even  threatening)  on  the  part 
of  masters  towards  their  slaves,  they  did  not  condemn  slavery  itself? 
While  they  required  the  master  to  treat  his  slave  according  to  the 
law  of  love,  they  did  not  command  him  to  set  him  free.  The  very 
atrocity,  therefore,  of  the  system  which  then  prevailed,  instead  of 
weakening  the  argument,  gives  it  tenfold  strength.  Then,  if  ever, 
when  the  institution  was  so  fearfully  abused,  we  might  expect  to 
hear  the  interpreters  of  the  divine  will  saying  that  a  system  which 
leads  to  such  results  is  the  concentrated  essence  of  all  crimes,  and 
must  be  instantly  abandoned  on  pain  of  eternal  condemnation. 
This,  however,  they  did  not  say,  and  we  cannot  now  force  them  to 
say  it.  They  treated  the  subject  precisely  as  they  did  the  cruel 
despotism  of  the  Roman  emperors.  The  licentiousness,  the  injus- 
tice, the  rapine  and  murders  of  those  wicked  men,  they  condemned 
with  the  full  force  of  divine  authority ;  but  the  mere  extent  of 
their  power,  though  so  liable  to  abuse,  they  left  unnoticed. 

Another  answer  to  the  argument  in  question  is,  that  "  The  New 
Testament  does  condemn  slaveholding,  as  practised  among  uSy  in 
the  most  explicit  terms  furnished  by  the  language  in  which  the 
sacred  penmen  wrote."  This  assertion  is  supported  by  saying  that 
God  has  condemned  slavery,  because  he  has  specified  the  parts 
which  compose  it  and  condemned  them,  one  by  one,  in  the  most 
ample  and  unequivocal  form.*  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  saving 
clause,  " slaveholding  as  it  exists  among  us"  is  introduced  into  the 
statement,  though  it  seems  to  be  lost  sight  of  in  the  illustration  and 
confirmation  of  it  which  follow.  We  readily  admit,  that  if  God 
does  condemn  all  the  parts  of  which  slavery  consists,  he  condemns 
slavery  itself.  But  the  drafter  of  the  address  has  made  no  attempt 
to  prove  that  this  is  actually  done  in  the  sacred  scriptures.  That 
many  of  the  attributes  of  the  system,  as  established  by  law  in  this 
country,  are  condemned,  is  indeed  very  plain ;  but  that  slavehold- 
ing in  itself  is  condemned,  has  not  been  and  cannot  be  proved. 
The  writer,  indeed,  says,  "  The  Greek  language  had  a  word  cor- 

•  Address,  &c.,  p.  20. 


SLAVERY.  293 

responding  exactly,  in  signification,  with  our  word  servant,  but  it 
had  none  which  answered  precisely  to  our  term  slave.  How  then 
was  an  apostle  writing  in  Greek,  to  condemn  our  slavery  ?  How 
can  we  expect  to  find  in  scripture,  the  words  '  slavery  is  sinful,' 
when  the  language  in  which  it  is  written  contained  no  term  which 
expressed  the  meaning  of  our  word  slavery  ?"     Does  the  gentleman 

*  mean  to  say  the  Greek  language  could  not  express  the  idea  that 
slaveholding  is  sinful  ?  Could  not  the  apostles  have  communicated 
the  thought  that  it  was  the  duty  of  masters  to  set  their  slaves  free? 
Were  they  obliged  from  paucity  of  words  to  admit  slaveholders 
into  the  Church?  We  have  no  doubt  the  writer  himself  could, 
with  all  ease,  pen  a  declaration  in  the  Greek  language  void  of  all 
ambiguity,  proclaiming  freedom  to  every  slave  upon  earth,  and 
denouncing  the  vengeance  of  heaven  upon  every  man  who  dared 
to  hold  a  fellow  creature  in  bondage.  It  is  not  words  we  care  for. 
We  want  evidence  that  the  sacred  writers  taught  that  it  was 
incumbent  on  every  slaveholder,  as  a  matter  of  duty,  to  emancipate 
his  slaves  (which  no  Roman  or  Greek  law  forbade),  and  that  his 
refusing  to  do  so  was  a  heinous  crime  in  the  sight  of  God.  The 
Greek  language  must  be  poor  indeed  if  it  cannot  convey  such  ideas. 
Another  answer  is  given  by  Dr.  Channing.  "  Slavery,"  he  says, 
"in  the  age  of  the  apostle,  had  so  penetrated  society,  was  so 
intimately  interwoven  with  it,  and  the  materials  of  servile  war 
were  so  abundant,  that  a  religion,  preaching  freedom  to  its  victims, 
would  have  armed  against  itself  the  whole  power  of  the  State  ? 
Of  consequence,  Paul  did  not  assail  it.  He  satisfied  himself  with 
spreading  principles,  which,  however  slowly,  could  not  but  work 
its  destruction."  To  the  same  eflfect.  Dr.  Wayland  says,  "The 
gospel  was  designed,  not  for  one  race  or  one  time,  but  for  all  men 
•and  for  all  times.  It  looked  not  at  the  abolition  of  this  form  of  evil 
•for  that   age  alone,   but  for   its  universal   abolition.     Hence  the 

'  important  object  of  its  author  was  to  gain  it  a  lodgment  in  every 
part  of  the  known  world ;  so  that,  by  its  universal  diffusion  among 
all  classes  of  society,  it  might  quietly  and  peacefully  modify  and 
subdue  the  evil  passions  of  men ;  and  thus,  without  violence,  work 
a  revolution  in  the  whole  mass  of  mankind.  In  this  manner  alone 
could  its  object,  a  universal  moral  revolution,  be  accomplished. 
For  if  it  had  forbidden  the  evil  without  subduing  the  principle,  if  it 
had  proclaimed  the  unlawfulness  of  slavery,  and  taught  slaves  to 
resist  the  oppression  of  their  masters,  it  would  instantly  have 
arrayed  the  two  parties  in  deadly  hostility  throughout  the  civilized 
world ;  its  announcement  would  have  been  the  signal  of  a  servile 
war  ;  and  the  very  name  of  the  Christian  religion  would  have  been 
forgotten  amidst  the  agitations  of  universal  bloodshed.  The  fact, 
under  these  circumstances,  that  the  gospel  does  not  forbid  slavery, 
affords  no  reason  to  suppose  that  it  does  not  mean  to  prohibit  it, 
much  less  does  it  aflford  ground  for  belief  that  Jesus  Christ  intended 
to  authorize  it."* 

♦Elements  of  Moral  Science,  p.  225, 


294  SLAVERY. 

Before  considering  the  force  of  this  reasoning,  it  may  be  well  to 
notice  one  or  two  important  admissions  contained  in  these  extracts. 
First,  then,  it  is  admitted  by  these  distinguished  moralists,  that  the 
apostles  did  not  preach  a  religion  proclaiming  freedom  to  slaves ; 
that  Paul  did  not  assail  slavery  ;  that  the  gospel  did  not  proclaim 
the  unlawfulness  of  slaveholding ;  it  did  not  forbid  it.  This  is 
going  the  whole  length  that  we  have  gone  in  our  statement  of 
the  conduct  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  Secondly,  these  writers 
admit  that  the  course  adopted  by  the  authors  of  our  religion 
was  the  only  wise  and  proper  one.  Paul  satisfied  himself,  says 
Dr.  Channing,  with  spreading  principles,  which,  however  slowly, 
could  not  but  work  its  destruction.  Dr.  Wayland  says,  that 
if  the  apostles  had  pursued  the  opposite  plan  of  denouncing 
slavery  as  a  crime,  the  Christian  religion  would  have  been 
ruined:  its  very  name  would  have  been  forgotten.  Then  how 
can  the  course  of  the  modern  abolitionists,  under  circumstances 
so  nearly  similar,  or  even  that'  of  these  reverend  gentlemen 
themselves,  be  right  ?  Why  do  not  they  content  themselves  with 
doing  what  Christ  and  his  apostles  did  ?  Why  must  they  proclaim 
the  unlawfulness  of  slavery  ?  Is  human  nature  so  much  altered, 
that  a  course  which  would  have  produced  universal  bloodshed, 
and  led  to  the  very  destruction  of  the  Christian  religion  in  one  age, 
is  wise  and  Christian  in  another  ? 

Let  us,  however,  consider  the  force  of  the  argument  as  stated 
above.  It  amounts  to  this.  Christ  and  his  apostles  thought  slave- 
holding  a  great  crime,  but  they  abstained  from  saying  so  for  fear 
of  the  consequences.  The  very  statement  of  the  argument,  in  its 
naked  form,  is  its  refutation.  These  holy  men  did  not  refrain  from 
condenining  sin  from  a  regard  to  the  consequences.  They  did 
not  hesitate  to  array  against  the  religion  which  they  taught, 
the  strongest  passions  of  men.  Nor  did  they  content  themselves 
with  denouncing  the  general  principles  of  evil ;  they  condemned 
its  special  manifestations.  They  did  not  simply  forbid  inlemperate 
sensual  indulgence,  and  leave  it  to  their  hearers  to  decide  what 
did  or  what  did  not  come  under  that  name.  They  declarec 
that  no  fornicator,  no  adulterer,  no  drunkard,  could  be  admitted  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  They  did  not  hesitate,  even,  when  a  little 
band,  a  hundred  and  twenty  souls,  to  place  themselves  in  direct 
and  irreconcilable  opposition  to  the  whole  polity,  civil  and  reli- 
gious, of  the  Jewish  state.  It  will  hardly  be  maintained  that 
slavery  was  at  that  time  more  intimately  interwoven  with  the 
institutions  of  society,  than  idolatry  was.  It  entered  into  the 
arrangements  of  every  family  ;  of  every  city  and  province,  and  of 
the  whole  Roman  empire.  The  emperor  was  the  Pontifex  Maxi- 
mus ;  every  department  of  the  state,  civil  and  military,  was 
pervaded  by  it.  It  was  so  united  with  the  fabric  of  the  govern- 
ment that  it  could  not  be  removed  without  effecting  a  revolution 
in  all  its  parts.  The  apostles  knew  this.  They  knew  that  to 
denounce  polytheism  was  to  array  against  them  the  whole  power 


SLAVERY.  295 

of  the  state.  Their  divine  Master  had  distinctly  apprised  them  of 
the  result.  He  told  them  that  it  would  set  the  father  against  the 
son,  and  the  son  against  the  father ;  the  mother  against  the  daugh- 
ter, and  the  daughter  against  the  mother  ;  and  that  a  man's  enemies 
should  be  those  of  his  own  household.  He  said  that  he  came  not 
to  bring  peace  but  a  sword,  and  that  such  would  be  the  opposition 
to  his  followers,  that  whosoever  killed  them,  would  think  he  did  God 
service.  Yet  in  view  of  these  certain  consequences  the  apostles 
did  denounce  idolatry,  not  merely  in  principle,  but  by  name.  The 
result  was  precisely  what  Christ  had  foretold.  The  Romans, 
tolerant  of  every  other  religion,  bent  the  whole  force  of  their 
wisdom  and  arms  to  extirpate  Christianity.  The  scenes  of  blood- 
shed which  century  after  century  followed  the  introduction  of  the 
gospel,  did  not  induce  the  followers  of  Christ  to  keep  back  or 
modify  the  truth.  They  adhered  to  their  declaration  that  idolatry 
was  a  heinous  crime.  And  they  were  right.  We  expect  similar 
conduct  of  our  missionaries.  We  do  not  expect  them  to  refrain 
from  denouncing  the  institutions  of  the  heathen  as  sinful,  because 
they  are  popular,  or  intimately  interwoven  with  society.  The 
Jesuits,  who  adopted  this  plan,  forfeited  the  confidence  of  Chris- 
tendom, without  making  converts  of  the  heathen.  It  is,  therefore, 
perfectly  evident  that  the  authors  of  our  religion  were  not  with- 
held by  these  considerations,  from  declaring  slavery  to  be  unlawful. 
If  they  did  abstain  from  this  declaration,  as  is  admitted,  it  must 
have  been  because  they  did  not  consider  it  as  in  itself  a  crime. 
No  other  solution  of  their  conduct  is  consistent  with  their  truth  or 
fidelity. 

Another  answer  to  the  argument  from  scripture  is  given  by  Dr. 
Channing  and  others.  It  is  said  that  it  proves  too  much  ;  that  it 
makes  the  Bible  sanction  despotism,  even  the  despotism  of  Nero. 
Our  reply  to  this  objection  shall  be  very  brief.  We  have  already 
pointed  out  the  fallacy  of  confounding  slaveholding  itself  with  the 
particular  system  of  slavery  prevalent  at  the  time  of  Christ,  and 
shown  that  the  recognition  of  slaveholders  as  Christians,  though 
irreconcilable  with  the  assumption  that  slavery  is  a  heinous  crime, 
gives  no  manner  of  sanction  to  the  atrocious  laws  and  customs 
of  that  age  in  relation  to  that  subject.  Because  the  apostles 
admitted  the  masters  of  slaves  to  the  communion  of  the  church, 
it  would  be  a  strange  inference  that  they  would  have  given 
this  testimony  to  the  Christian  character  of  the  master  who 
oppressed,  starved,  or  murdered  his  slaves.  Such  a  master 
would  have  been  rejected  as  an  oppressor,  or  murderer,  how- 
ever, not  as  a  slaveholder.  In  like  manner,  the  declaration 
that  government  is  an  ordinance  of  God,  that  magistrates  are 
to  be  obeyed  within  the  sphere  of  their  lawful  authority; 
that  resistance  to  them,  when  in  the  exercise  of  that  authority,  is 
sinful;  gives  no  sanction  to  the  oppression  of  the  Roman  emperors, 
or  to  the  petty  vexations  of  provincial  officers.  The  argument 
urged  from  scripture  in  favour  of  passive  submission,  is  not  so 


296 


SLAVERY. 


exactly  parallel  with  the  argument  for  slavery,  as  Dr.  Channing 
supposes.*  They  agree  in  some  points,  but  they  differ  in  others. 
The  former  is  founded  upon  a  false  interpretation  of  Rom.  xiii., 
1-3 ;  it  supposes  that  passage  to  mean  what  it  does  not  mean, 
whereas  the  latter  is  founded  upon  the  sense  which  Dr.  C.  and 
other  opponents  of  slavery  admit  to  be  the  true  sense.  This  must 
be  allowed  to  alter  the  case  materially.  Again,  the  argument  for 
the  lawfulness  of  slaveholding  is  not  founded  on  the  mere  injunc- 
tion, "  Slaves,  obey  your  masters,"  analogous  to  the  command, 
"  Let  every  soul  be  subject  to  the  higher  powers,"  but  on  the  fact 
that  the  apostles  did  not  condemn  slavery ;  that  they  did  not  require 
emancipation ;  and  that  they  recognised  slaveholders  as  Christian 
brethren.  To  make  Dr.  Channing's  argument  of  any  force,  it 
must  be  shown  that  Paul  not  only  enjoined  obedience  to'  a  despotic 
monarch,  but  that  he  recognised  Nero  as  a  Christian.  When  this 
is  done,  then  we  shall  admit  that  our  argument  is  fairly  met,  and 
that  it  is  just  as  true  that  he  sanctioned  the  conduct  of  Nero  as  that 
he  acknowledged  the  lawfulness  of  slavery. 

The  two  cases,  however,  are  analogous  as  to  one  important  point. 
The  fact  that  Paul  enjoins  obedience  under  a  despotic  government, 
is  a  valid  argument  to  prove,  not  that  he  sanctioned  the  conduct  of 
the  reigning  Roman  emperor,  but  that  he  did  not  consider  the  pos- 
session of  despotic  power  a  crime.  The  argument  of  Dr.  C.  would 
be  far  stronger,  and  the  two  cases  more  exactly  parallel,  had  one 
of  the  emperors  become  a  penitent  believer  during  the  apostoHc 
age,  and  been  admitted  to  the  Christian  church  by  inspired  men, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  retained  his  office  and  authority. 
But  even  without  this  latter  decisive  circumstance,  w^e  acknow- 
ledge that  the  mere  holding  of  despotic  power  is  proved  not  to  be 
a  crime  by  the  fact  that  the  apostles  enjoined  obedience  to  those 
who  exercised  it.  Thus  far  the  arguments  are  analogous  ;  and 
they  prove  that  both  political  despotism  and  domestic  slavery 
belong  in  morals  to  the  adiaphora,  to  things  indifferent.  They  may 
be  expedient  or  inexpedient,  right  or  wrong,  according  to  circum- 
stances. Belonging  to  the  same  class,  they  should  be  treated  in 
the  same  way.  Neither  is  it  to  be  denounced  as  necessarily  sinful, 
and  to  be  abolished  immediately  under  all  circumstances  and  at  all 
hazards.  Both  should  be  left  to  the  operation  of  those  general 
principles  of  the  gospel,  which  have  peacefully  meliorated  politi- 
cal institutions,  and  destroyed  domestic  slavery  throughout  the 
greater  part  of  Christendom. 

The  truth  on  this  subject  is  so  obvious  that  it  sometimes  escapes 

•  It  need  hardly  be  remarked  that  the  command  to  obey  magistrates,  as  given  in 
Rom.  xiii.,  1-3,  is  subject  to  the  limitation  stated  above.  They  are  to  be  obeyed  as 
magistrates ;  precisely  as  parents  are  to  be  obeyed  as  parents,  husbands  as  hus- 
bands. The  command  of  obedience  is  expressed  as  generally,  in  the  last  tw^o  cases, 
as  in  the  first.  A  magistrate  beyond  the  limits  of  his  lawful  authority  (wrhatever  that 
may  be)  has,  in  virtue  of  this  text,  no  more  claim  to  obedience,  than  a  parent  who, 
on  the  strength  of  the  passage,  "  Children,  obey  your  parents  in  all  things,"  should 
command  his  son  to  obey  him  as  a  monarch  or  a  pope. 


I 


SLAVERY.  297 

unconsciously  from  the  lips  of  the  most  strenuous  abolitionists. 
Mr.  Birney  says,  "  He  would  have  retained  the  power  and  author- 
ity of  an  emperor ;  yet  his  oppressions,  his  cruelties,  would  have 
ceased  ;  the  very  temper  that  prompted  them  would  have  been 
suppressed  :  his  power  would  have  been  put  forth  for  good 
and  not  for  evil."*  Here  everything  is  conceded.  The  pos- 
session of  despotic  power  is  thus  admitted  not  to  be  a  crime, 
even  when  it  extends  over  millions  of  men,  and  subjects  their 
lives  as  well  as  their  property  and  services  to  the  will  of  an 
individual.  What  becomes  then  of  the  arguments  and  denuncia- 
tions of  slave-holding,  which  is  despotism  on  a  small  scale? 
Would  Mr.  Birney  continue  in  the  deliberate  practice  of  a  crime 
worse  than  robbery,  piracy,  or  murder  ?  When  he  penned  the 
above  sAtiment,  he  must  have  seen  that  neither  by  the  law  of  God 
nor  of  reason  is  it  necessarily  sinful  to  sustain  the  relation  of  master 
over  our  fellow  creatures  ;  that  if  this  unlimited  authority  be  used 
for  the  good  of  those  over  whom  it  extends  and  for  the  glory  of 
God,  its  possessor  may  be  one  of  the  best  and  most  useful  of  men. 
It  is  the  abuse  of  this  power  for  base  and  selfish  purposes  which 
constitutes  criminality,  and  not  its  simple  possession.  He  may  say 
that  the  tendency  to  abuse  absolute  power  is  so  great  that  it  ought 
never  to  be  confided  to  the  hands  of  men.  This,  as  a  general  rule, 
is  no  doubt  true,  and  establishes  the  inexpediency  of  all  despotic 
governments  whether  for  the  state  or  the  family.  But  it  leaves 
the  morality  of  the  question  just  where  it  was,  and  where  it  was 
seen  to  be,  when  Mr.  Birney  said  he  could  with  a  good  conscience 
be  a  Roman  emperor,  i.  e.,  the  master  of  millions  of  slaves. 

The  consideration  of  the  Old  Testament  economy  leads  us  to  the 
same  conclusion  on  this  subject.  It  is  not  denied  that  slavery  was 
tolerated  among  the  ancient  people  of  God.  Abraham  had  ser- 
vants in  his  family  who  were  **  bought  with  his  money,"  Gen. 
xvii.,  13.  "  Abimelech  took  sheep  and  oxen,  and  men  servants, 
and  maid  servants,  and  gave  them  unto  Abraham."  Moses, 
finding  this  institution  among  the  Hebrews  and  all  surrounding 
nations,  did  not  abolish  it.  He  enacted  laws  directing  how  slaves 
were  to  be  treated,  on  what  conditions  they  were  to  be  liberated, 
under  what  circumstances  they  might,  and  might  not,  be  sold  ;  he 
recognises  the  distinction  between  slaves  and  hired  servants 
(Deut.  XV.,  18)  ;  he  speaks  of  the  way  by  which  these  bondmen 
might  be  procured  ;  as  by  war,  by  purchase,  by  the  right  of  credit- 
orship,  by  the  sentence  of  a  judge,  by  birth  ;  but  not  by  seizing 
on  those  who  were  free,  an  offence  punished  by  death. f  The  fact 
that  the  Mosaic  institutions  recognised  the  lawfulness  of  slavery  is 
a  point  too  plain  to  need  proof,  and  is  almost  universally  admitted. 

*  Quoted  by  Pres.  Young,  p.  45,  of  the  Address,  &c. 
■     t  On  the  manner  in  which  slaves  were  acquired,  compare  Deut.  xx.,  14  ;  xxi., 
10,  11  ;  Ex.  xxii.,  3;  Neh.  v  ,  4,  5;  Gen.  xiv.,  14;  xv.,  3;  xvii.,  23;  Num.  xxxi., 
18,  35  ;  Deut  xxv.,  44,  46. 

As  to  the  manner  in  which  they  were  to  be  treated,  see  Lev.   xxv,,  39-53  ; 
Ex.  XX.,  10  ;  xxii.,  2-8  ;  Deut  xxv.,  4-6,  &c.,  &c. 


WB 


SLAVERY. 


Our  argument  from  this  acknowledged  fact  is,  that  if  God  allowed 
slavery  to  exist,  if  he  directed  how  slaves  might  be  lawfully- 
acquired,  and  how  they  were  to  be  treated,  it  is  in  vain  to  contend 
that  slaveholding  is  a  sin,  and  yet  profess  reverence  for  the  scrip- 
tures. Every  one  must  feel  that  if  perjury,  murder,  or  idolatry, 
had  been  thus  authorized,  it  would  bring  the  Mosaic  institutions 
into  conflict  with  the  eternal  principles  of  morals,  and  that  our 
faith  in  the  divine  origin  of  one  or  the  other  must  be  given  up. 

Dr.  Channing  says,  of  this  argument  also,  that  it  proves  too  much. 
"  If  usages  sanctioned  under  the  Old  Testament,  and  not  forbidden 
under  the  New,  are  right,  then  our  moral  code  will  undergo  a  sad 
deterioration.  Polygamy  was  allowed  to  the  Israelites,  was  the 
practice  of  the  holiest  men,  and  was  common  and  licensed  in  the 
age  of  the  apostles.  But  the  apostles  nowhere  conderfti  it,  nor 
was  the  renunciation  of  it  made  an  essential  condition  of  admission 
into  the  Christian  Church."  To  this  we  answer,  that  so  far  as 
polygamy  and  divorce  were  permitted  under  the  old  dispensation, 
they  were  lawful,  and  became  so  by  that  permission  ;  and  ihey 
ceased  to  be  lawful  when  the  permission  was  withdrawn,  and  a 
new  law  given.  That  Christ  did  give  a  new  law  on  this  subject 
is  abundantly  evident*  With  regard  to  divorce,  it  is  as  explicit 
as  language  can  make  it  ;  and  with  regard  to  polygamy  it  is  so 
plain  as  to  have  secured  the  assent  of  every  portion  of  the  Christian 
Church  in  all  ages.  The  very  fact  that  there  has  been  no  diversity 
of  opinion  or  practice  among  Christians  with  regard  to  polygamy, 
is  itself  decisive  evidence  that  the  will  of  Christ  was  clearly  reveal- 
ed on  the  subject.  The  temptation  to  continue  the  practice  w^as  as 
strong,  both  from  the  passions  of  men,  and  the  sanction  of  prior 
ages,  as  in  regard  to  slavery.  Yet  we  find  no  traces  of  the  tolera- 
tion of  polygamy  in  the  Christian  Church,  though  slavery  long 
continued  to  prevail.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  apostles 
admitted  to  the  fellowship  of  Christians,  those  who  were  guilty  of 
this  infraction  of  the  law  of  marriage.  It  is  indeed  possible  that 
in  cases  where  the  converts  had  already  more  than  one  wife,  the 
connexion  was  not  broken  off.  It  is  evident  this  must  have  occa- 
sioned great  evil.  It  would  lead  to  the  breaking  up  of  families,  the 
separation  of  parents  and  children,  as  well  as  husbands  and  wives. 
Under  these  circumstances  the  connexion  may  have  been  allowed 
to  continue.  It  is,  however,  very  doubtful  whether  even  this  was 
permitted.     It  is  remarkable  that  among  the  numerous  cases  of 

*  •«  The  words  of  Christ  (Matt,  xix.,  9)  may  be  construed  by  an  easy  implication 
to  prohibit  polygamy :  for  if  '  whoever  putteth  away  his  wife,  and  marrieth  another, 
committeth  adultery,'  he  who  marrieth  another  without  putting  away  the  first,  is  no 
less  guilty  of  adultery  :  because  the  adultery  does  not  consist  in  the  repudiation  of 
the  first  wife  (for,  however  unjust  and  cruel  that  may  be,  it  is  not  adultery),  but  in 
entering  into  a  second  marriage  during  the  legal  existence  and  obligation  of  the  first. 
The  several  passages  in  St.  Paul's  writings,  which  speak  of  marriage,  always  suppose 
it  to  signify  the  union  of  one  man  with  one  woman." — Paley's  Moral  Phil.,  book  iii., 
chap.  6. 


SLAVERY.  299 

conscience  connected  with  marriage,  submitted  to  the  apostles, 
this  never  occurs. 

Dr.  Channing  uses  language  much  too  strong  when  he  says  that 
polygamy  was  common  and  licensed  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  It 
was  contrary  both  to  Roman  and  Grecian  laws  and  usages,  until  the 
most  degenerate  periods  of  the  history  of  those  nations.  It  was  very 
far  from  being  customary  among  the  Jews,  though  it  might  have 
been  allowed.  It  is  probable  that  it  was,  therefore,  comparatively 
extremely  rare  in  the  apostolic  age.  This  accounts  for  the  fact  that 
scarcely  any  notice  is  taken  of  the  practice  in  the  New  Testament. 
Wherever  marriage  is  spoken  of  it  seems  to  be  taken  for  granted,  as 
a  well  understood  fact,  that  it  was  a  contract  for  life  between  one 
man  and  one  woman ;  compare  Rom.  vii.,  2,  3  ;  1  Cor.  vii.,  1,  2, 
39.  It  is  further  to  be  remarked  on  this  subject  that  marriage  is  a 
positive  institution.  If  God  had  ordained  that  every  man  should 
have  two  or  more  wives  instead  of  one,  polygamy  would  have 
been  lawful.  But  slaveholding  is  denounced  as  a  malum  in  se ; 
as  essentially  unjust  and  wicked.  This  being  the  case,  it  could  at 
no  period  of  the  world  receive  the  divine  sanction,  much  less 
could  it  have  continued  in  the  Christian  Church,  under  the  direc- 
tion of  inspired  men,  when  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  its  imme- 
diate abolition.  The  answer  then  of  Dr.  Channing  is  unsatisfac- 
tory ;  first,  because  polygamy  does  not  belong  to  the  same  cate- 
gory in  morals  as  that  to  which  slaveholding  is  affirmed  to  belong ; 
and  secondly,  because  it  was  so  plainly  prohibited  by  Christ  and 
his  apostles  as  to  secure  the  assent  of  all  Christians  in  all  ages  of 
the  Church. 

It  is,  however,  argued  that  slavery  must  be  sinful  because  it 
interferes  with  the  inalienable  rights  of  men.  We  have  already 
remarked  that  slavery,  in  itself  considered,  is  a  state  of  bondage, 
and  nothing  more.  It  is  the  condition  of  an  individual  who  is 
deprived  of  his  personal  liberty,  and  is  obliged  to  labour  for 
another,  who  has  the  right  to  transfer  this  claim  of  service  at 
pleasure.  That  this  condition  involves  the  loss  of  many  of  the 
rights  which  are  commonly  and  properly  called  natural,  because 
belonging  to  men,  as  men,  is  readily  admitted.  It  is,  however, 
incumbent  on  those  who  maintain  that  slavery  is,  on  this  account, 
necessarily  sinful,  to  show  that  it  is  criminal,  under  all  circum- 
stances, to  deprive  any  set  of  men  of  a  portion  of  their  natural 
rights.  That  this  broad  proposition  cannot  be  maintained,  is  evi- 
dent. The  very  constitution  of  society  supposes  the  forfeiture  of 
a  greater  or  less  amount  of  these  rights,  according  to  its  peculiar 
organization.  That  it  is  not  only  the  privilege,  but  the  duty  of 
men  to  live  together  in  a  regularly  organized  society,  is  evident 
from  the  nature  which  God  has  given  us  ;  from  the  impossibility  of 
every  man  living  by  and  for  himself,  and  from  the  express  declara- 
tions of  the  word  of  God.  The  object  of  the  formation  of  society 
is  the  promotion  of  human  virtue  and  happiness ;  and  the  form  in 
which  it  should  be  organized,  is  that  which  will  best  secure  the 


300  SLAVERY. 

attainment  of  this  object.     As,  however,  the  condition  of  men  is 
so  very  various,  it  is  impossible  that  the  same  form  should  be 
equally  conducive  to  happiness  and  virtue  under  all  circumstances. 
No  one  form,  therefore,  is  prescribed  in  the  Bible,  or  is  universally 
obligatory.     The  question  which  form  is,  under  given  circum- 
stances, to  be  adopted,  is  one  of  great  practical  difficulty,  and 
must  be  left  to  the  decision  of  those  who  have  the  power  to  decide, 
on  their  own  responsibility.      The  question,   however,  does  not 
depend  upon  the  degree  in  which  these  several  forms  may  encroach 
on  the  natural  rights  of  men.     In  the  patriarchal  age,  the  most 
natural,  the  most  feasible,  and  perhaps  the  most  beneficial  form  of 
government  was  by  the  head  of  the  family.     His  power  by  the 
law  of  nature,  and  the  necessity  of  the  case,  extended  without  any 
other  limit  than  the  general  principles  of  morals,  over  his  children, 
and  in  the  absence  of  other  regular  authority,  would  not  terminate 
when  the  children  arrived  at  a  particular  age,  but  be  continued 
during  life.     He  was  the  natural  umpire  between  his  adult  offspring 
— he  was  their  lawgiver  and  leader.    His  authority  would  naturally 
extend  over  his  more  remote  descendants,  as  they  continued  to 
increase,  and  on  his  death,  might  devolve  on  the  next  oldest  of  the 
family.    There  is  surely  nothing  in  this  mode  of  constituting  society 
which  is  necessarily  immoral.     If  found  to  be  conducive  to  the 
general  good,  it  might  be  indefinitely  continued.     It  would  not 
suffice  to  render  its  abrogation  obligatory,  to  say  that  all  men  are 
born  free  and  equal ;  that  the  youth  of  twenty-one  had  as  good  a 
right  to  have  a  voice  in  the  affairs  of  the  family  as  the  aged  patri- 
arch ;  that  the  right  of  self-government  is  indefeasible,  &c.     Un- 
less it  could  be  shown  that  the  great  end  of  society  was  not 
attainable  by  this  mode  of  organization,  and  that  it  would  be  more 
securely  promoted  by  some  other,  it  would  be  an  immorality  to 
require  or  to  effect  the  change.     And  if  a  change  became,  in 
the  course  of  time,  obviously  desirable,  its  nature  and  extent  would 
be  questions  to  be  determined  by  the  peculiar  circumstances  of 
the  case,  and  not  by  the  rule  of  abstract  rights.     Under  some 
circumstances   it   might   be   requisite   to   confine   the   legislative 
power  to  a  single  individual ;  under  others  to  the  hands  of  a  few  ; 
and  under  others  to  commit  it  to  the  whole  community.     It  would 
be  absurd  to  maintain,  on  the  ground  of  the  natural  equality  of 
men,  that  a  horde  of  ignorant  and  vicious  savages  should  be  organ- 
ized as  a  pure  democracy,  if  experience  taught  that  such  a  form 
of  government  was  destructive  to  themselves  and  others.     These 
different  modes  of  constituting  civil  society  are  not  necessarily 
either  just  or  unjust,  but  become  the  one  or  the  other  according  to 
circumstances ;  and  their  morality  is  not  determined  by  the  degree' 
in  which  they  encroach  upon  the  natural  rights  of  men,  but  on  the 
degree  in  which  they  promote  or  retard  the  progress  of  human 
happiness  and  virtue.     In  this  country  we  believe  that  the  general 
good  requires  us  to  deprive  the  whole  female  sex  of  the  right  of 
self-government.     They  have  no  voice  in  the  formation  of  the 


SLAVERY.  301 

laws  which  dispose  of  their  persons  and  property.  When  mar- 
ried, we  despoil  them  almost  entirely  of  a  legal  existence,  and 
deny  them  some  of  the  most  essential  rights  of  property.  We 
treat  all  minors  much  in  the  same  way,  depriving  them  of  many 
personal  and  almost  all  political  rights,  and  that  too  though  they 
may  be  far  more  competent  to  exercise  them  aright  than  many 
adults.  We,  moreover,  decide  that  a  majority  of  one  may  make 
laws  for  the  whole  community,  no  matter  whether  the  numerical 
majority  have  more  wisdom  or  virtue  than  the  minority  or  not. 
Our  plea  for  all  this  is,  that  the  good  of  the  whole  is  thereby  most 
effectually  promoted.  This  plea,  if  made  out,  justifies  the  case. 
In  England  and  France  they  believe  that  the  good  of  the  whole 
requires  that  the  right  of  governing,  instead  of  being  restricted  to 
all  adult  males,  as  we  arbitrarily  determine,  should  be  confined  to 
that  portion  of  the  male  population  who  hold  a  given  amount  of 
property.  In  Prussia  and  Russia,  they  believe  with  equal  confi- 
dence, that  public  security  and  happiness  demand  that  all  power 
should  be  in  the  hands  of  the  king.  If  they  are  right  in  their 
opinion,  they  are  right  in  their  practice.  The  principle  that  social 
and  political  organizations  are  designed  for  the  general  good,  of 
course  requires  they  should  be  allowed  to  change,  as  the  progress 
of  society  may  demand.  It  is  very  possible  that  the  feudal  system 
may  have  been  well  adapted  to  the  state  of  Europe  in  the  middle 
ages.     The  change  in  the  condition  of  the  world,  however,  has 

fradually  obliterated  almost  all  its  features.  The  villain  has 
ecome  the  independent  farmer;  the  lord  of  the  manor,  the  simple 
landlord ;  and  the  sovereign  liege,  in  whom,  according  to  the 
fiction  of  the  system,  the  Tee  of  the  whole  country  vested,  has 
become  a  constitutional  monarch.  It  may  be  that  another  series 
of  changes  may  convert  the  tenant  into  an  owner,  the  lord  into  a 
rich  commoner,  and  the  monarch  into  a  president.  Though  these 
changes  have  resulted  in  giving  the  people  the  enjoyment  of  a 
larger  amount  of  their  rights  than  they  formerly  possessed,  it  is  not 
hence  to  be  inferred  that  they  ought  centuries  ago  to  have  been 
introduced  suddenly  or  by  violence.  Christianity  "operates  as 
alterative."  It  was  never  designed  to  tear  up  the  institutions  of 
society  by  the  roots.  It  produces  equality  not  by  prostrating  trees 
of  all  sizes  to  the  ground,  but  by  securing  to  all  the  opportunity  of 
growing,  and  by  causing  all  to  grow,  until  the  original  disparity  is 
no  longer  perceptible.  All  attempts,  by  human  wisdom,  to  frame 
society,  of  a  sudden,  after  a  pattern  cut  by  a  rule  of  abstract  rights, 
have  tailed ;  and  whether  they  had  failed  or  not,  they  can  never? 
be  urged  as  a  matter  of  moral  obligation.  It  is  not  enough  there- 
fore, in  order  to  prove  the  sinfulness  of  slaveholding,  to  show  that 
it  interferes  with  the  natural  rights  of  a  portion  of  the  community. 
It  is  in  this  respect  analogous  to  all  other  social  institutions.  They 
are  all  of  them  encroachments  on  human  rights,  from  the  freest 
democracy  to  the  most  absolute  despotism. 

It  is  further  to  be  remarked  that  all  these  rights  suppose  cones-- 


302  SLAVERY. 

ponding  duties,  and  where  there  is  an  incompetence  for  the  duty, 
the  claim  to  exercise  the  right  ceases.  No  man  can  justly  claim 
the  exercise  of  any  right  to  the  injury  of  the  community  of  which 
he  is  a  member.  It  is  because  females  and  minors  are  judged 
(though  for  different  reasons)  incompetent  to  the  proper  discharge 
of  the  duties  of  citizenship,  that  they  are  deprived  of  the  right  of 
suffrage.  It  is  on  the  same  principle  that  a  large  portion  of  the 
inhabitants  of  France  and  England  are  deprived  of  the  same  pri- 
vilege. As  it  is  acknowledged  that  the  slaves  may  be  justly 
deprived  of  political  rights  on  the  ground  of  their  incompetency 
to  exercise  them  without  injury  to  the  community,  it  must  be 
admitted,  by  parity  of  reason,  that  they  may  be  justly  deprived  of 
personal  freedom,  if  incompetent  to  exercise  it  with  safety  to  soci- 
ety. If  this  is  so,  then  slavery  is  a  question  of  circumstances, 
and  not  a  malum  in  se.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  object 
of  these  remarks  is  not  to  prove  that  the  American,  the  British,  or 
the  Russian  form  of  society  is  expedient  or  otherwise ;  much  less 
to  show  that  the  slaves  in  this  country  are  actually  unfit  for  free- 
dom, but  simply  to  prove  that  the  mere  fact  that  slaveholding  inter- 
feres with  natural  rights,  is  not  enough  to  justify  the  conclusion 
that  it  is  necessarily  and  universally  sinful. 

Another  very  common  and  plausible  argument  on  this  subject  is, 
that  a  man  cannot  be  made  a  matter  of  property.  He  cannot  be 
degraded  into  a  brute  or  chattel  without  the  grossest  violation  of 
duty  and  propriety  ;  and  that  as  slavery  confers  this  right  of  property 
in  human  beings  it  must,  from  its  very  nature,  be  a  crime.  We 
acknowledge  the  correctness  of  the  principle  on  which  this  argu- 
ment is  founded,  but  deny  that  it  is  applicable  to  the  case  in  hand. 
We  admit  that  it  is  not  only  an  enormity,  but  an  impossibility,  that 
a  man  should  be  made  a  thing,  as  distinguished  from  a  rational  and 
moral  being.  It  is  not  within  the  compass  of  human  law  to  alter 
the  nature  of  God's  creatures.  A  man  must  be  regarded  and 
treated  as  a  rational  being  even  in  his  greatest  degradation.  That 
he  is,  in  some  countries  and  under  some  institutions,  deprived  of 
many  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of  such  a  being,  does  not  alter 
his  nature.  He  must  be  viewed  as  a  man  under  the  most  atrocious 
system  of  slavery  that  ever  existed.  Men  do  not  arraign  and  try 
on  evidence,  and  punish  on  conviction  either  things  or  brutes. 
Yet  slaves  are  under  a  regular  system  of  laws  which,  however 
unjust  they  may  be,  recognise  their  character  as  accountable 
beings.  When  it  is  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  slave  is  called 
the  property  of  his  master,  that  he  is  thereby  degraded  from  his  rank 
as  a  human  being,  the  argument  rests  on  the  vagueness  of  the  term 
property.  Property  is  the  right  of  possession  and  use,  and  must  of 
necessity  vary  according  to  the  nature  of  the  objects  to  which  it  . 
attaches.  A  man  has  property  in  his  wife,  in  his  children,  in  his 
domestic  animals,  in  his  fields  and  in  his  forests.  That  is,  he  has 
the  right  to  the  possession  and  use  of  these  several  objects  accord- 
ing to  their  nature.     He  has  no  more  right  to  use  a  brute  as  a  log 


SLAVERY.  303 

of  wood,  in  virtue  of  the  right  of  property,  than  he  has  to  use  a 
man  as  a  brute.  There  are  general  principles  of  rectitude  obliga- 
tory on  all  men,  which  require  them  to  treat  all  the  creatures  of 
God  according  to  the  nature  which  he  has  given  them.  The  man 
who  should  burn  his  horse  because  it  was  his  property,  would 
find  no  justification  in  that  plea  either  before  God  or  man.  When 
therefore  it  is  said  that  one  man  is  the  property  of  another,  it  can 
only  mean  that  the  one  has  a  right  to  use  the  other  as  a  man,  but  not 
as  a  brute  or  as  a  thing.  He  has  no  right  to  treat  him  as  he  may  law- 
fully treat  his  ox,  or  a  tree.  He  can  convert  his  person  to  no  use  to 
which  a  human  being  may  not,  by  the  laws  of  God  and  nature,  be 
properly  applied.  When  this  idea  of  property  comes  to  be  ana- 
lysed, it  is  found  to  be  nothing  more  than  a  claim  of  service  either 
for  life  or  for  a  term  of  years.  This  claim  is  transferable,  and  is 
of  the  nature  of  property,  and  is  consequently  liable  for  the  debts 
of  the  owner,  and  subject  to  his  disposal  by  will  or  otherwise.  It 
is  probable  that  the  slave  is  called  the  property  of  his  master  in  the 
statute  books,  for  the  same  reason  that  children  are  called  the 
servants  of  their  parents,  or  that  wives  are  said  to  be  the  same 
person  with  their  husbands  and  to  have  no  separate  existence  of 
their  own.  These  are  mere  technicalities  designed  to  facilitate 
certain  legal  processes.  Calling  a  child  a  servant  does  not  alter 
his  relation  to  his  father ;  and  a  wife  is  still  a  woman,  though  the 
courts  may  rule  her  out  of  existence.  In  like  manner  where  the 
law  declares  that  the  slave  shall  be  deemed  and  adjudged  to  be  a 
chattel  personal  in  the  hands  of  his  master,  it  does  not  alter  his 
nature,  nor  does  it  confer  on  the  master  any  right  to  use  him  in  a 
manner  inconsistent  with  that  nature.  As  there  are  certain  moral 
principles  which  direct  how  brutes  are  to  be  used  by  those  to  whom 
they  belong,  so  there  are  fixed  principles  which  determine  how  a 
man  may  be  used.  These  legal  enactments,  therefore,  are  not 
intended  to  legislate  away  the  nature  of  the  slave  as  a  human  being ; 
they  serve  to  facilitate  the  transfer  of  the  master's  claim  of  service, 
and  to  render  that  claim  the  more  readily  liable  for  his  debts. 
The  transfer  of  authority  and  claim  of  service  from  one  master  to 
another,  is  in  principle  analogous  to  transfer  of  subjects  from  one 
sovereign  to  another.  This  is  a  matter  of  frequent  occurrence. 
By  the  treaty  of  Vienna,  for  example,  a  large  part  of  the  inhabit- 
ants of  central  Europe  changed  masters.  Nearly  half  of  Saxony 
was  transferred  to  Prussia ;  Belgium  was  annexed  to  Holland.  la 
like  manner  Louisiana  was  transferred  from  France  to  the  United 
States.  In  none  of  these  cases  were  the  people  consulted.  Yet 
in  all  a  claim  of  service  more  or  less  extended  was  made  over  from 
one  power  to  another.  There  was  a  change  of  masters.  The 
mere  transferable  character  of  the  master's  claim  to  the  slave  does 
not  convert  the  latter  into  a  thing,  or  degrade  him  from  his  rank  as 
human  being.  Nor  does  the  fact  that  he  is  bound  to  serve  for  life 
produce  this  effect.     It  is  only  property  in  his  time  for  life,  instead 


304  SLAVERY. 

of  for  a  term  of  years.     The  nature  of  the  relation  is  not  deter- 
mined by  the  period  of  its  continuance. 

It  has,  however,  been  argued  that  the  slave  is  the  property  of  his 
master,  not  only  in  the  sense  admitted  above,  but  in  the  sense  assumed 
in  the  objection,  because  his  children  are  under  the  same  obligation 
of  service  as  the  parent.  The  hereditary  character  of  slavery,  how^- 
ever,  does  not  arise  out  of  the  idea  of  the  slave  as  a  chattel  or  thing, 
a  mere  matter  of  property:  it  depends  on  the  organization  of  society. 
In  England  one  man  is  born  a  peer,  another  a  commoner  ;  in  Russia 
one  is  born  a  noble,  another  a  serf;  here  one  is  born  a  free  citizen, 
another  a  disfranchised  outcast  (the  free  coloured  man),  and  a 
third  a  slave.  These  forms  of  society,  as  before  remarked,  are 
not  necessarily,  or  in  themselves,  either  just  or  unjust ;  but  become 
the  one  or  the  other,  according  to  circumstances.  Under  a  state 
of  things  in  which  the  best  interests  of  the  community  would  be 
promoted  by  the  British  or  Russian  organization,  they  would  be 
just  and  acceptable  to  God ;  but  under  circumstances  in  which 
they  would  be  injurious,  they  would  be  unjust.  It  is  absolutely 
necessary,  however,  to  discriminate  between  an  organization 
essentially  vicious,  and  one  which,  being  in  itself  indifferent,  may 
be  right  or  wrong  according  to  circumstances.  On  the  same 
principle,  therefore,  that  a  human  being  in  England  is  deprived  by 
the  mere  accident  of  birth,  of  the  right  of  suffrage ;  and  in  Russia 
has  the  small  portion  of  liberty  which  belongs  to  a  commoner,  or 
the  still  smaller  belonging  to  a  serf;  in  this  country  one  class  is 
by  birth  invested  with  all  the  rights  of  citizenship,  another 
(females)  is  deprived  of  all  political  and  many  personal  rights,  and 
a  third  of  even  their  personal  liberty.  Whether  this  organization 
is  right  or  wrong  is  not  now  the  question.  We  are  simply 
showing  that  the  fact  that  the  children  of  slaves  become  by  birth 
slaves,  is  not  to  be  referred  to  the  idea  of  the  master's  property  in 
the  body  and  soul  of  the  parent,  but  results  from  the  form  of 
society,  and  is  analogous  to  other  social  institutions,  as  far  as  the 
principle  is  concerned,  that  the  children  take  the  rank,  or  the 
political  or  social  condition  of  the  parent. 

We  prefer  being  chargeable  with  the  sin  of  wearisome  repe- 
tition, to  leaving  any  room  for  the  misapprehension  of  our  meaning. 
We,  therefore,  again  remark  that  we  are  discussing  the  mere 
abstract  morality  of  these  forms  of  social  organization,  and  not 
their  expediency.  We  have  in  view  the  vindication  of  the 
character  of  the  inspired  writings  and  inspired  men  from  the  charge 
of  having  overlooked  the  blackest  of  human  crimes,  and  of  having 
recognised  the  worst  of  human  beings  as  Christians.  We  say, 
therefore,  that  an  institution  which  deprives  a  certain  portion  of  the 
community  of  their  personal  liberty,  and  places  them  under  obliga- 
tion of  service  to  another  portion,  is  no  more  necessarily  sinful  than 
one  which  invests  an  individual  with  despotic  power  (such  as  Mr. 
Birney  would  consent  to  hold)  ;  or  than  one  which  limits  the 
right  of  government  to  a  small  portion  of  the  people,  or  restricts 


SLAVERY.  305 

it  to  the  male  part  of  the  community.  However  inexpedient,  under 
certain  circumstances,  any  one  of  these  arrangements  may  be,  they 
are  not  necessarily  immoral,  nor  do  they  become  such,  from  the 
fact  that  the  accident  of  birth  determines  the  relation  in  v^^hich  one 
part  of  the  community  is  to  stand  to  the  other.  In  ancient  Egypt, 
as  in  modern  India,  birth  decided  the  position  and  profession  of 
every  individual.  One  was  born  a  priest,  another  a  merchant, 
another  a  labourer,  another  a  soldier.  As  there  must  always  be 
these  classes,  it  is  no  more  necessarily  immoral  to  have  them  all 
determined  by  hereditary  descent,  than  it  was  among  tlie  Israelites 
to  have  all  the  officers  of  religion  from  generation  to  generation 
thus  determined  ;  or  that  birth  should  determine  the  individual 
who  is  to  fill  a  throne  or  occupy  a  seat  in  parliament. 

Again,  Dr.   Wayland  argues,   if  the   right   to  hold  slaves  be 
conceded,  "  there  is  of  course  conceded  all  other  rights  necessary 
to  insure  its  possession.     Hence,  inasmuch  as  the  slave  can  be 
held  in  this  condition  only  while  he  remains  in  the  lowest  state 
of  mental  imbecility,   it  supposes   the    master   to  have  the  right 
to  control    his   intellectual    development   just  as  far  as  may   be 
necessary  to  secure  entire  subjection."*     He  reasons  in  the  same 
way   to  show  that   the    religious    knowledge    and    even   eternal 
happiness  of  the  slave,  are  as  a  matter  of  right  conceded  to  the 
power  of  the  master,  if  the  right  of  slaveholding  is  admitted.     The 
utmost  force  that  can  be  allowed  to  this  argument  is,  that  the  right 
to  hold  slaves  includes  the  right  to  exercise  all  proper  means  to 
insure  its  possession.     It  is  in  this  respect  on  a  par  with  all  other 
rights  of  the  same  kind.     The  rights  of  parents  to  the  service  of 
their  children,  of  husbands  to  the  obedience  of  their   wives,  of 
masters  over  their  apprentices,  of  creditors  over   their  debtors, 
of   rulers   over    their    subjects,   all    suppose   the    right  to  adopt 
proper    means   for    their    secure    enjoyment.      They,  however, 
give  no  sanction  to  the  employment  of   any  and  every   means 
which    cruelty,    suspicion,   or    jealousy,  may    choose    to    deem 
necessary,  nor  of  any  which  would    be    productive  of  greater 
general   evil  than  the  forfeiture  of   the   rights  themselves.     Ac- 
cording  to   the   ancient  law   even   among  the  Jews,  the  power 
of  life  and  death  was  granted  to  the  parent ;  we  concede  only  the 
power  of  correction.     The  old  law  gave  the  same  power  to  the 
husband  over  the  wife.     The  Roman  law  confided  the  person  and 
even  life  of  the  debtor  to  the  mercy  of  the  creditor.     According 
to  the  reasoning  of  Dr.  Wayland,  all  these  laws  must  be  sanctioned, 
if  the  rights  which  they  were  deemed  necessary  to  secure,  are 
acknowledged.     It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  most  unrighteous 
means  may  be  adopted  to  secure  a  proper  end,  under  the  plea  of 
necessity.     The  justice  of  the  plea  must  be  made  out  on  its  own 
grounds,  and  cannot  be  assumed  on  the  mere  admission  of  the  pro- 
priety of  the  end  aimed  at.     Whether  the  slaves  of  this  country 

•  Elements  of  Moral  Science,  p.  221. 
20 


306  SLAVERY. 

may  be  safely  admitted  to  the  enjoyments  of  personal  liberty,  is  a 
matter  of  dispute :  bat  that  they  could  not,  consistently  with  the 
public  welfare,  be  intrusted  with  the  exercise  of  political  power, 
is  on  all  hands  admitted.  It  is,  then,  the  acknowledged  right  of  the 
state  to  govern  them  by  laws  in  the  formation  of  which  they  have 
no  voice.  But  it  is  the  universal  plea  of  the  depositaries  of  irre- 
sponsible power,  sustained  too  by  almost  universal  experience,  that 
men  can  be  brought  to  submit  to  political  despotism  only  by  being 
kept  in  ignorance  and  poverty.  Dr.  Wayland,  then,  if  he  concedes 
the  right  of  the  state  to  legislate  for  the  slaves,  must,  according  to 
his  own  reasoning,  acknowledge  the  right  to  adopt  all  the  means 
necessary  for  the  security  of  this  irresponsible  power,  and  of  con- 
sequence that  the  state  has  the  right  to  keep  the  blacks  in  the 
lowest  state  of  degradation.  If  he  denies  the  validity  of  this  argu- 
ment in  favour  of  political  despotism,  he  must  renounce  his  own 
against  the  lawfulness  of  domestic  slavery.  Dr.  Wayland  himself 
would  admit  the  right  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia  to  exercise  a 
degree  of  power  over  his  half  civilized  subjects,  which  could  not 
be  maintained  over  an  enlightened  people,  though  he  would  be 
loath  to  acknowledge  his  right  to  adopt  all  the  means  necessary  to 
keep  them  in  their  present  condition.  The  acknowledgment, 
therefore,  of  the  right  to  hold  slaves,  does  not  involve  the  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  right  to  adopt  measures  adapted  and  intended  to 
perpetuate  their  present  mental  and  physical  degradation. 

We  have  entered  much  more  at  length  into  the  abstract  argu- 
ment on  this  subject  than  we  intended.  It  was  our  purpose  to 
confine  our  remarks  to  the  scriptural  view  of  the  question.  But 
the  consideration  of  the  objections  derived  from  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  morals,  rendered  it  necessary  to  enlarge  our  plan.  As  it 
appears  to  us  too  clear  to  admit  of  either  denial  or  doubt,  that  the 
scriptures  do  sanction  slaveholding ;  that  under  the  old  dispensa- 
tion it  was  expressly  permitted  by  divine  command,  and  under  the 
New  Testament  is  nowhere  forbidden  or  denounced,  but  on  the 
contrary,  acknowledged  to  be  consistent  with  the  Christian  cha- 
racter and  profession  (that  is,  consistent  with  justice,  mercy,  holi- 
ness, love  to  God  and  love  to  man),  to  declare  it  to  be  a  heinous 
crime,  is  a  direct  impeachment  of  the  word  of  God.  We,  there- 
fore, felt  it  incumbent  upon  us  to  prove,  that  the  sacred  scriptures 
are  not  in  conflict  with  the  first  principles  of  morals ;  that  what 
they  sanction  is  not  the  blackest  and  basest  of  all  oflfences  in  the 
sight  of  God.  To  do  this,  it  was  necessary  to  show  what  slavery 
is,  to  distinguish  between  the  relation  itself,  and  the  various  cruel 
or  unjust  laws  which  may  be  made  either  to  bring  men  into  it,  or 
to  secure  its  continuance  ;  to  show  that  it  no  more  follows  from 
the  admission  that  the  scriptures  sanction  the  right  of  slavehold- 
ing, that  they,  therefore,  sanction  all  the  oppressive  slave-laws  of 
any  community,  than  it  follows  from  the  admission  of  the  propriety 
of  parental,  conjugal,  or  political  relations,  that  they  sanction  all  the 


SLAVERY.  307 

conflicting  codes  by  which  these  relations  have  at  different  peri- 
ods and  in  different  countries  been  regulated. 

We  have  had  another  motive  in  the  preparation  of  this  article. 
The  assumption  that  slaveholding  is  itself  a  crime,  is  not  only  an 
error,  but  it  is  an  error  fraught  with  evil  consequences.  It  not 
merely  brings  its  advocates  into  conflict  with  the  scriptures,  but  it 
does  much  to  retard  the  progress  of  freedom  ;  it  embitters  and 
divides  the  members  of  the  community,  and  distracts  the  Christian 
church.  Its  operation  in  retarding  the  progress  of  freedom  is  ob- 
vious and  manifold.  In  the  first  place,  it  directs  the  battery  of  the 
enemies  of  slavery  to  the  wrong  point.  It  might  be  easy  for  them 
to  establish  the  injustice  or  cruelty  of  certain  slave-laws,  where 
it  is  not  in  their  power  to  establish  the  sinfulness  of  slavery  itself 
They,  therefore,  waste  their  strength.  Nor  is  this  the  least  evil. 
They  promote  the  cause  of  their  opponents.  If  they  do  not  discri- 
minate between  slaveholding  and  the  slave-laws,  it  gives  the  slave- 
holder not  merely  an  excuse  but  an  occasion  and  a  reason  for 
making  no  such  distinction.  He  is  thus  led  to  feel  the  same  convic- 
tion in  the  propriety  of  the  one  that  he  does  in  that  of  the  other. 
His  mind  and  conscience  may  be  satisfied  that  the  mere  act  of  hold- 
ing slaves  is  not  a  crime.  This  is  the  point,  however,  to  which 
the  abolitionist  directs  his  attention.  He  examines  their  argu- 
ments, and  becomes  convinced  of  their  inconclusiveness,  and  is 
not  only  thus  rendered  impervious  to  their  attacks,  but  is  exaspe- 
rated by  what  he  considers  their  unmerited  abuse.  In  the  mean- 
time his  attention  is  withdrawn  from  far  more  important  points  ; 
the  manner  in  which  he  treats  his  slaves,  and  the  laws  enacted  for 
the  security  of  his  possession.  These  are  points  on  which  his 
judgment  might  be  much  more  really  convinced  of  error,  and  his 
conscience  of  sin. 

In  the  second  place,  besides  fortifying  the  position  and  strength- 
ening the  purpose  of  the  slaveholder,  the  error  in  question  divides 
and  weakens  the  friends  of  freedom.  To  secure  any  valuable 
result  by  public  sentiment,  you  must  satisfy  the  public  mind  and 
rouse  the  public  conscience.  Their  passions  had  better  be  allowed 
to  rest  in  peace.  As  the  anti-slavery  societies  declare  it  to  be  their 
object  to  convince  their  fellow-citizens  that  slaveholding  is  neces- 
sarily a  heinous  crime  in  the  sight  of  God,  we  consider  their 
attempt  as  desperate,  so  long  as  the  Bible  is  regarded  as  the  rule 
of  right  and  wrong.  They  can  hardly  secure  either  the  verdict 
of  the  public  mind  or  of  the  public  conscience  in  behalf  of  this 
proposition.  Their  success  hitherto  has  not  been  very  encourag- 
ing, and  is  certainly  not  very  flattering,  if  Dr.  Channing's  account 
of  the  class  of  persons  to  whom  they  have  principally  addressed 
their  arguments,  is  correct.  The  tendency  of  their  exertions,  be 
their  success  great  or  small,  is  not  to  unite,  but  to  divide.  They 
do  not  carry  the  judgment  or  conscience  of  the  people  with  them. 
They  form,  therefore,  a  class  by  themselves.  Thousands  who 
earnestly  desire  to  see  the  south  convinced  of  the  injustice  and 


308  SLAVERY. 

consequent  impolicy  of  their  slave-laws,  and  under  this  conviction, 
of  their  own  accord,  adopting  those  principles  which  the  Bible 
enjoins,  and  which  tend  to  produce  universal  intelligence,  virtue, 
liberty  and  equality,  without  violence  and  sudden  change,  and  which 
thus  secure  private  and  public  prosperity,  stand  aloof  from  the  aboli- 
tionists, not  merely  because  they  disapprove  of  their  spirit  and  mode 
of  action,  but  because  they  do  not  admit  their  fundamental  principle. 
In  the  third  place,  the  error  in  question  prevents  the  adoption  of 
the  most  effectual  means  of  extinguishing  the  evil.  These  means 
are  not  the  opinions  or  feehngs  of  the  non-slaveholding  states,  nor 
the  denunciation  of  the  holders  of  slaves,  but  the  improvement, 
intellectual  and  moral,  of  the  slaves  themselves.  Slavery  has  but 
two  natural  and  peaceful  modes  of  death.  The  one  is  the  increase 
of  the  slave  population  until  it  reaches  the  point  of  being  unpro- 
ductive. When  the  number  of  slaves  becomes  so  great  that  the 
master  cannot  profitably  employ  them,  he  manumits  them  in  self- 
defence.  This  point  would  probably  have  been  reached  long  ago, 
in  many  of  the  southern  states,  had  not  the  boundless  extent  of  the 
south-western  sections  of  the  Union  presented  a  constant  demand 
for  the  surplus  hands.  Many  planters  in  Virginia  and  Maryland, 
whose  principles  or  feelings  revolt  at  the  idea  of  selling  their  slaves 
to  the  south,  find  that  their  servants  are  gradually  reducing  them 
to  poverty,  by  consuming  more  than  they  produce.  The  number, 
however,  of  slaveholders  who  entertain  these  scruples  is  compara- 
tively small.  And  as  the  demand  for  slave  labor  in  the  still  unoc- 
cupied regions  of  the  extreme  south-west  is  so  great,  and  is  likely  to 
be  so  long  continued,  it  is  hopeless  to  think  of  slavery  dying  out  by 
becoming  a  public  burden.  The  other  natural  and  peaceful  mode 
of  extinction,  is  the  gradual  elevation  of  the  slaves  in  knowledge, 
virtue,  and  property,  to  the  point  at  which  it  is  no  longer  desirable 
or  possible  to  keep  them  in  bondage.  Their  chains  thus  gradually 
relax,  until  they  fall  off  entirely.  It  is  in  this  way  that  Christianity 
has  abolished  both  political  and  domestic  bondage,  whenever  it  has 
had  free  scope.  It  enjoins  a  fair  compensation  for  labour  ;  it 
insists  on  the  moral  and  intellectual  improvement  of  all  classes  of 
men  ;  it  condemns  all  infractions  of  marital  or  parental  rights  ;  in 
short,  it  requires  not  only  that  free  scope  should  be  allowed  to 
human  improvement,  but  that  all  suitable  means  should  be  employed 
for  the  attainment  of  that  end.  The  feudal  system,  as  before 
remarked,  has  in  a  great  measure  been  thus  outgrown  in  all  the 
European  states.  The  third  estate,  formerly  hardly  recognised  as 
having  an  existence,  is  becoming  the  controlling  power  in  most  of 
those  ancient  communities.  The  gradual  improvement  of  the 
people  rendered  it  impossible  and  undesirable  to  deprive  them  of 
their  just  share  in  the  government.  And  it  is  precisely  in  those 
countries  where  this  improvement  is  most  advanced  that  the  feudal 
nstitutions  are  the  most  completely  obliterated,  and  the  general 
prosperity  the  greatest.  In  like  manner  the  gospel  method  of 
extinguishing  slavery  is  by  improving  the  condition  of  the  slave. 


SLAVERY.  309 

The  grand  question  is,  How  is  this  to  be  done  ?  The  abolitionist 
answers,  by  immediate  emancipation.  Perhaps  he  is  right,  per- 
haps he  is  wrong ;  but  whether  right  or  wrong,  it  is  not  the  prac- 
tical question  for  the  north.  Among  a  community  which  have 
the  power  to  emancipate,  it  would  be  perfectly  proper  to  urge  that 
measure  on  the  ground  of  its  being  the  best  means  of  promoting 
the  great  object  of  the  advancement  of  human  happiness  and 
virtue.  But  the  error  of  the  abolitionists  is,  that  they  urge  this 
measure  from  the  wrong  quarter,  and  upon  the  wrong  ground. 
They  insist  upon  immediate  abolition  because  slavery  is  a  sin,  and 
its  extinction  a  duty.  If,  however,  slaveholding  is  not  in  itself 
sinful,  its  abolition  is  not  necessarily  a  duty.  The  question  of  duty 
depends  upon  the  effects  of  the  measure,  about  which  men  may 
honestly  differ.  Those  who  believe  that  it  would  advance  the 
general  good,  are  bound  to  promote  it  ;  while  those  who  believe 
the  reverse,  are  equally  bound  to  resist  it.  The  abolitionists,  by 
insisting  upon  one  means  of  improvement,  and  that  on  untenable 
ground,  are  most  effectually  working  against  the  adoption  of  any 
other  means,  by  destroying  the  disposition  and  power  to  employ 
them.  It  is  in  this  way  that  the  error  to  which  we  have  referred 
throughout  this  article,  is  operating  most  disadvantageously  for  the 
cause  of  human  liberty  and  happiness.  The  fact  is,  that  the  great 
duty  of  the  south  is  not  emancipation,  but  improvement.  The 
former  is  obligatory  only  as  a  means  to  an  end,  and  therefore,  only 
under  circumstances  where  it  would  promote  that  end.  In  like 
manner  the  great  duty  of  despotic  governments  is  not  the  im- 
mediate granting  of  free  institutions,  but  the  constant  and  assiduous 
cultivation  of  the  best  interests  (knowledge,  virtue  and  happiness) 
of  the  people.  Where  free  institutions  would  conduce  to  this 
object,  they  should  be  granted,  and  just  so  far  and  so  fast  as  this 
becomes  apparent. 

Again,  the  opinion  that  slaveholding  is  itself  a  crime  must 
operate  to  produce  the  disunion  of  the  states,  and  the  division  of 
all  ecclesiastical  societies  in  this  country.  The  feelings  of  the 
people  may  be  excited  violently  for  a  time,  but  the  transport  soon 
passes  away.  But  if  the  conscience  is  enlisted  in  the  cause,  and 
becomes  the  controlling  principle,  the  alienation  between  the 
north  and  the  south  must  become  permanent.  The  opposition  to 
southern  institutions  will  be  calm,  constant,  and  unappeasable. 
Just  so  far  as  this  opinion  operates,  it  will  lead  those  who  entertain 
it  to  submit  to  any  sacrifices  to  carry  it  out,  and  give  it  effect. 
We  shall  become  two  nations  in  feeling,  which  must  soon  render 
us  two  nations  in  fact.  With  regard  to  the  church  its  operation 
will  be  much  more  summary.  If  slaveholding  is  a  heinous  crime, 
slaveholders  must  be  excluded  from  the  church.  Several  of  our 
judicatories  have  already  taken  this  position.  Should  the  General 
Assembly  adopt  it,  the  church  is,  ipso  facto,  divided.  If  the  opinion 
in  question  is  correct,  it  must  be  maintained,  whatever  are  the  con- 
sequences.    We  are  no  advocates  of  expediency  in  morals.     We 


310  SLAVERY. 

have  no  more  right  to  teach  error  in  order  to  prevent  evil,  than 
we  have  a  right  to  do  evil  to  promote  good.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  the  opinion  is  incorrect,  its  evil  consequences  render  it  a  duty  to 
prove  and  exhibit  its  unsoundness.  It  is  under  the  deep  impres- 
sion that  the  primary  assumption  of  the  abolitionists  is  an  error, 
that  its  adoption  tends  to  the  distraction  of  the  country,  and  the 
division  of  the  church ;  and  that  it  w^ill  lead  to  the  longer  con- 
tinuance and  greater  severity  of  slavery,  that  we  have  felt  con- 
strained to  do  what  little  we  could  towards  its  correction. 

We  have  little  apprehension  that  any  one  can  so  far  mistake  our 
object,  or  the  purport  of  our  remarks,  as  to  suppose  either  that  we 
regard  slavery  as  a  desirable  institution,  or  that  we  approve  of  the 
slave  laws  of  the  southern  states.  So  far  from  this  being  the  case, 
the  extinction  of  slavery,  and  the  melioration  of  those  laws,  are  as 
sincerely  desired  by  us,  as  by  any  of  the  abolitionists.  The  ques- 
tion is  not  about  the  continuance  of  slavery,  and  of  the  present 
system,  but  about  the  proper  method  of  effecting  the  removal  of 
the  evil.  We  maintain,  that  it  is  not  by  denouncing  slaveholding 
as  a  sin,  or  by  universal  agitation  at  the  north,  but  by  the  improve- 
ment of  the  slaves.  It  no  more  follows  that  because  the  master 
has  a  right  to  hold  slaves,  he  has  a  right  to  keep  them  in  a  state  of 
degradation  in  order  to  perpetuate  their  bondage,  than  that  the 
Emperor  of  Russia  has  a  right  to  keep  his  subjects  in  ignorance 
and  poverty,  in  order  to  secure  the  permanence  and  quiet  posses- 
sion of  his  power.  We  hold  it  to  be  the  grand  principle  of  the 
Gospel,  that  every  man  is  bound  to  promote  the  moral,  intellectual 
and  physical  improvement  of  his  fellow  men.  Their  civil  or  poli- 
tical relations  are  in  themselves  matters  of  indifference.  Monarchy, 
aristocracy,  democracy,  domestic  slavery,  are  right  or  wrong  as  they 
are,  for  the  time  being,  conducive  to  this  great  end,  or  the  reverse. 
They  are  not  objects  to  which  the  improvement  of  society  is  to  be 
sacrificed  ;  nor  are  they  strait-jackets  to  be  placed  upon  the  public 
body  to  prevent  its  free  development.  We  think,  therefore,  that 
the  true  method  for  Christians  to  treat  this  subject,  is  to  follow  the 
example  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  In  relation  both  to  despotism 
and  slavery.  Let  them  enforce  as  moral  duties  the  great  principles 
of  justice  and  mercy,  and  all  the  specific  commands  and  precepts 
of  the  scriptures.  If  any  set  of  men  have  servants,  bond  or  free, 
to  whom  they  refuse  a  proper  compensation  for  their  labour,  they 
violate  a  moral  duty  and  an  express  command  of  scripture.  What 
that  compensation  should  be,  depends  on  a  variety  of  circum- 
stances. In  some  cases  the  slaveholder  would  be  glad  to  com- 
pound for  the  support  of  his  slaves  by  giving  the  third  or  half  of 
the  proceeds  of  his  estate.  Yet  this  at  the  north  would  be 
regarded  as  a  full  remuneration  for  the  mere  labour  of  production. 
Under  other  circumstances,  however,  a  mere  support  would  be 
very  inadequate  compensation  ;  and  when  inadequate,  it  is  unjust. 
If  the  compensation  be  more  than  a  support,  the  surplus  is  the 
property  of  the  labourer,  and  cannot  morally,  whatever  the  laws 


SLAVERY.  311 

may  say,  be  taken  from  him.  The  right  to  accumulate  property 
is  an  incident  to  the  right  of  reward  for  labour.  And  we  beheve 
there  are  few  slaveholding  countries  in  which  the  right  is  not  prac- 
tically acknowledged,  since  we  hear  so  frequently  of  slaves  pur- 
chasing their  own  freedom.  It  is  very  common  for  a  certain 
moderate  task*  to  be  assigned  as  a  day's  work,  which  may  be 
regarded  as  the  compensation  rendered  by  the  slave  for  his  sup- 
port. The  residue  of  the  day  is  at  his  own  disposal,  and  may  be 
employed  for  his  own  profit.  We  are  not  now,  however,  con- 
cerned about  details.  The  principle  that  "the  labourer  is  worthy 
of  his  hire"  and  should  enjoy  it,  is  a  plain  principle  of  morals  and 
command  of  the  Bible,  and  cannot  be  violated  with  impunity. 

Again,  if  any  man  has  servants  or  others  whom  he  forbids  to 
marry,  or  whom  he  separates  after  marriage,  he  breaks  as  clearly 
a  revealed  law  as  any  written  on  the  pages  of  inspiration,  or  on 
the  human  heart.  If  he  interferes  unnecessarily  with  the  authority 
of  parents  over  their  children,  he  again  brings  himself  into  collision 
with  his  Maker.  If  any  man  has  under  his  charge  children,  appren- 
tices, servants,  or  slaves,  and  does  not  teach  them,  or  cause  them 
to  be  taught  the  will  of  God  ;  if  he  deliberately  opposes  their 
intellectual,  moral,  or  religious  improvement,  he  makes  himself  a 
transgressor.  That  many  of  the  laws  of  the  slaveholding  states 
are  opposed  to  these  simple  principles  of  morals,  we  fully  believe  ; 
and  we  do  not  doubt  that  they  are  sinful  and  ought  to  be  rescinded. 
If  it  be  asked  what  would  be  the  consequence  of  thus  acting  on 
the  principles  of  the  gospel,  of  following  the  example  and  obeying 
the  precepts  of  Christ,  we  answer,  the  gradual  elevation  of  the 
slaves  in  intelligence,  virtue  and  wealth  ;  the  peaceable  and  speedy 
extinction  of  slavery ;  the  improvement  in  general  prosperity  of 
all  classes  of  society,  and  the  consequent  increase  in  the  sum  of 
human  happiness  and  virtue.  This  has  been  the  result  of  acting 
on  these  principles  in  all  past  ages ;  and  just  in  proportion  as  they 
have  been  faithfully  observed.  The  degradation  of  most  eastern 
nations,  and  of  Italy,  Spain,  and  Ireland,  are  not  more  striking 
examples  of  the  consequences  of  their  violation,  than  Scotland, 
England,  and  the  non-slaveholding  States  are  of  the  benefits  of 
their  being  even  imperfectly  obeyed.  Men  cannot  alter  the  laws 
of  God.  It  would  be  as  easy  for  them  to  arrest  the  action  of  the 
force  of  gravity  as  to  prevent  the  systematic  violation  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  morals  being  productive  of  evil. 

Besides  ihe  two  methods  mentioned  above,  in  which  slavery  dies 
a  natural  and  easy  death,  there  are  two  others  by  which,  as  history 
teaches  us,  it  may  be  brought  to  an  end.  The  one  is  by  the  non- 
slaveholders,  in  virtue  of  their  authority  in  the  state  to  which  the 
slaves  and  their  masters  belonged,  passing  laws  for  its  extinction. 
Of  this,  the  northern  states  and  Great  Britain  are  examples.     The 

*  We  heard  the  late  Dr.  Wisner,  after  his  long  visit  to  the  south,  say,  that  the 
usual  task  of  a  slave  in  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  was  about  the  third  of  a  day's 
work  for  a  northern  labourer. 


312  SLAVERY. 

Other  is  by  servile  insurrections.  The  former  of  these  two  methods 
is  of  course  out  of  the  question,  as  it  regards  most  of  the  southern 
states ;  for  in  almost  all  of  them  the  slave-owners  have  the  legisla- 
tive power  in  their  own  hands.  The  south,  therefore,  has  to  choose 
between  emancipation  by  the  silent  and  holy  influence  of  the 
gospel,  securing  the  elevation  of  the  slaves  to  the  stature  and 
character  of  freemen,  or  to  abide  the  issue  of  a  long  continued 
conflict  against  the  laws  of  God.  That  the  issue  will  be  disas- 
trous there  can  be  no  doubt.  But  whether  it  will  come  in  the 
form  of  a  desolating  servile  insurrection,  or  in  some  other  shape, 
it  is  not  for  us  to  say.  The  choice,  however,  is  between  rapidly 
increasing  millions  of  human  beings  educated  under  moral  and 
religious  restraints,  and  attached  to  the  soil  by  the  proceeds  of 
their  own  labour,  or  hordes  of  unenlightened  barbarians.  If  the 
south  deliberately  keep  these  millions  in  this  state  of  degradation, 
they  must  prepare  themselves  for  the  natural  consequences,  what- 
ever they  may  be. 

It  may  be  objected  that  if  the  slaves  are  allowed  so  to  improve 
as  to  become  freemen,  the  next  step  in  their  progress  is  that  they 
should  become  citizens.  We  admit  that  it  is  so.  The  feudal  serf 
first  became  a  tenant,  then  a  proprietor  invested  with  political 
power.  This  is  the  natural  progress  of  society,  and  it  should  be 
allowed  thus  freely  to  expand  itself,  or  it  will  work  its  own  destruc- 
tion. If  a  tree  is  not  allowed  to  grow  erect  and  in  its  natural 
shape,  it  will  become  crooked,  knotted  and  worthless,  but  grow  it 
must.  This  objection  would  not  be  considered  of  any  force,  if  the 
slaves  in  this  country  were  not  of  a  different  race  from  their  mas- 
ters. Still  they  are  men ;  their  colour  does  not  place  them  beyond 
the  operation  of  the  principles  of  the  gospel,  or  from  under  the 
protection  of  God.  We  cannot  too  frequently  remember,  that  it 
is  our  province  to  do  right,  it  is  God's  to  overrule  results.*  Let 
then  the  north  remember  that  they  are  bound  to  follow  the  exam- 
ple of  Christ  in  the  manner  of  treating  slavery,  and  the  south, 
that  they  are  bound  to  follow  the  precepts  of  Christ  in  their 
manner  of  treating  their  slaves.  If  both  parties  follow  the  Sa- 
viour of  men,  both  will  contribute  to  the  promotion  of  human 
excellence  and  happiness,  and  both  will  have  reason  to  rejoice  in 
the  result. 

*  If  the  fact  that  the  master  and  slave  belong  to  different  races,  precludes  the  pos- 
sibility of  their  living  together  on  equal  terms,  the  inference  is,  not  that  the  one  has 
a  right  to  oppress  the  other,  but  that  they  should  separate.  Whether  this  should  be 
done  by  dividing  the  land  between  them  and  giving  rise  to  distinct  communities,  or 
by  the  removal  of  the  inferior  class  on  just  and  wise  conditions,  it  is  not  for  us  to  say. 
We  have  undertaken  only  to  express  an  opinion  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Bible 
directs  those  who  look  to  it  for  guidance  to  treat  this  difficult  subject,  and  not  to  trace 
out  a  plan  to  provide  for  ulterior  results.  It  is  for  this  reason  we  have  said  nothing 
of  African  colonization,  though  we  regard  it  as  one  of  the  noblest  enterprises  of 
modern  benevolence. 


ESSAY    XI 


ABOLITIONISM. 


Usage  often  gives  a  comprehensive  word  a  limited  sense.  If. 
in  our  day,  and  in  this  country,  you  ask  a  man  whether  he  is  an 
abohtionist,  he  will  promptly  answer  no,  though  he  may  believe 
with  Jefferson  that  slavery  is  the  greatest  curse  that  can  be  inflicted 
on  a  nation  ;  or  with  Cassius  M.  Clay,  that  it  is  destructive  of 
industry,  the  mother  of  ignorance,  opposed  to  literature,  antago- 
nist to  the  fine  arts,  destructive  of  mechanical  excellence ;  that  it 
corrupts  the  people,  retards  population  and  wealth,  impoverishes 
the  soil,  destroys  national  wealth,  and  is  incompatible  with  consti- 
tutional liberty.  A  man  may  believe  and  say  all  this,  as  many  of 
the  wisest  and  best  men  of  the  South  believe  and  openly  avow,  and 
yet  be  no  abolitionist.  If  every  man  who  regards  slavery  as  an 
evil,  and  wishes  to  see  it  abolished,  were  an  abolitionist,  then  nine 
tenths  of  the  people  of  this  country  would  be  abolitionists.  What 
then  is  an  abolitionist  ?  He  is  a  man  who  holds  that  slaveholding 
is  a  great  sin ;  and  consequently  that  slaveholders  should  not  be 
admitted  to  the  communion  of  the  church,  and  that  slavery  should 
immediately,  under  all  circumstances,  and  regardless  of  all  conse- 
quences, be  abolished.  "  Slaveholding,"  says  the  second  article  of 
the  American  Anti-slavery  Society,  "  is  a  heinous  crime  in  the 
sight  of  God,"  and  "  ought  therefore  to  be  immediately  abolished." 
"  The  question,"  says  the  Reviewer  of  Dr.  Junkin's  pamphlet,  "  now 
in  process  of  investigation  among  American  churches,  is  this,  and 
no  other :  Are  the  professed  Christians  in  our  respective  connex- 

*  Originally  published  in  1844,  in  review  of  the  following  works:  1.  "The 
Integrity  of  our  National  Union  vs.  Abolitionism.  An  argument  from  the  Bible,  in 
proof  of  the  position  ;  that  believing  masters  ought  to  be  honoured  and  obeyed  by 
their  servants,  and  tolerated  in,  not  excommunicated  from  the  Church  of  God,  being 
part  of  a  speech  delivered  before  the  Synod  of  Cincinnati,  on  the  subject  of  Slavery. 
September  19th  and  20th,  1843.  By  Rev.  George  Junkin,  D.D.,  President  of 
Miami  University." 

2.  "  The  Contrast,  or  the  Bible  vs.  Abolitionism :  an  Exegetical  Argument.  By 
Rev.  William  Graham,  Pastor  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  church,  Oxford,  Ohio." 

3.  *•  A  Review  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Junkin's  Synodical  Speech,  in  Defence  of  American 
Slavery,  with  an  outline  of  the  Bible  argument  against  Slavery." 

4.  "  Line  of  Demarcation  between  tlie  Secular  and  Spiritual  Kingdoms.  By  the 
Rev.  William  Wisner,  D.D." 


314  ABOLITIONISM. 

ions  who  hold  their  fellow  men  as  slaves,  thereby  guilty  of  a  sin 
which  demands  the  cognisance  of  the  church,  and  after  due  admo- 
nition, the  application  of  discipline  ?"  P.  17.  This  question  aboli- 
tionists answer  in  the  affirmative  ;  all  other  men  in  the  negative. 
Every  party  has  a  character  as  well  as  a  creed.  Whatever  it  is 
that  holds  them  together  as  a  party,  gives  them  a  common 
spirit,  which  again  leads  to  characteristic  measures  and  modes  of 
action.  If  the  bond  of  union  is  coincidence  of  opinion  on  some 
great  principle  in  politics,  religion  or  morals,  then  the  characteris- 
tic spirit  of  the  party  will  be  determined  by  the  nature  of  that 
opinion.  If  we  look  at  the  great  parties  in  England,  the  Tory, 
Whig  and  Radical,  we  shall  see  they  have  each  its  own  charac- 
ter, arising  out  of  their  distinctive  principles.  The  Tory  desires 
to  see  political  power  confined  to  the  holders  of  property ;  the 
Whigs  to  the  educated  classes ;  the  Radicals  would  have  it  extend- 
ed to  the  whole  population  without  regard  to  their  intellectual  or 
moral  condition ;  and  we  see  amidst  the  diversity  of  individual 
character,  arising  from  a  thousand  different  sources,  a  common 
spirit  belonging  to  these  several  parties,  arising  from  the  distinctive 
principle  of  each.  The  correctness  of  this  remark  is  still  more 
obvious  with  regard  to  religious  parties ;  because  religious  truth 
has  a  more  direct  and  powerful  influence  on  the  character  of  men 
than  mere  political  opinions.  We  not  only  see  the  great  divisions 
of  the  Christian  world,  the  evangelical,  ritual,  and  rationalistic, 
exhibiting  strongly-marked  peculiarities,  arising  from  the  radically 
different  views  of  doctrine  which  they  entertain,  but  the  minute 
subdivisions  of  the  large  classes  have  each  its  own  distinctive 
character.  It  is  impossible  that  the  difference  between  the  Calvi- 
nist  and  the  evangelical  Arminian  should  not  manifest  itself  both  in 
the  state  of  their  hearts  and  in  outward  acts.  And  who  can  shut 
his  eyes  to  the  influence  exerted  by  the  New  Divinity,  in  all  its 
modifications,  as  it  has  existed  in  this  country  ?  The  spirit  of  cen- 
soriousness,  of  denunciation,  of  coarse  authoritative  dealing,  and 
the  whole  array  of  new  measures,  were  the  natural  fruit  of  the 
peculiar  doctrines  of  one  class  of  the  advocates  of  the  New  Divi- 
nity, and  especially  of  their  opinion  that  a  change  of  heart  was  a 
change  of  purpose,  which  a  man  could  effect  as  easily  as  change 
his  route  on  a  journey.  If,  again,  a  party  is  constituted  by  a  parti- 
cular opinion  on  any  question  of  morals,  its  character  will  depend 
upon  the  nature  of  that  opinion.  We  may  take  as  an  illustration 
of  this  point  the  temperance  society.  The  opinion  that  the  use 
of  spirituous  liquors  was  in  this  age  and  country  of  evil  tendency, 
and  ought  to  be  discountenanced  by  a  general  determination  of 
the  friends  of  temperance  to  abandon  such  use,  had  nothing  in  it 
anti-scriptural,  nothing  malevolent.  So  long,  therefore,  as  this 
opinion  continued  the  bond  of  union  of  the  associated  friends  of 
temparence,  their  spirit  was  benevolent,  and  their  measures  mild. 
But  as  soon  as  the  doctrine  was  embraced  that  the  use  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors  was  in  itself  sinful,  then  poison  was  infused  into  the 


ABOLITIONISM.  316 

whole  organization.  Then  every  man  who  drank  a  glass  of  wine 
was  a  sinner,  and  was  to  be  made  a  subject  of  ecclesiastical  disci- 
pline. Then  the  holy  Scriptures  were  put  to  the  torture  to  make 
them  utter  the  new  doctrine  ;  and  those  to  whose  ears  this  utter- 
ance was  not  sufficiently  distinct,  made  bold  hypothetically  to 
denounce  them,  and  to  blaspheme  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  Then 
a  spirit  of  censoriousness,  of  defamation,  and  of  falsehood,  seized 
upon  those  in  whom  the  virus  had  produced  its  full  effect,  making 
their  publications  an  opprobrium  and  a  nuisance. 

We  have  in  modern  abolitionism  another  illustration  of  this 
same  truth.  That  slavery,  like  despotism,  in  its  verv  nature,  sup- 
poses a  barbarous  or  partially  civilized  condition  of  at  least  one 
portion  of  society ;  that  it  ought  not  and  cannot,  without  gross 
injustice,  be  rendered  permanent ;  that  the  means  of  moral  and 
intellectual  culture  should  be  extended  to  slaves,  and  to  the  subjects 
of  despotic  governments,  and  the  road  of  improvement  be  left 
open  before  them,  is  an  opinion  which  any  man  may  hold,  and 
which  we  believe  is  in  fact  held  by  ninety-nine  hundredths  of  all 
the  intelligent  and  good  men  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  And  that 
opinion  may  and  ought  to  be  made  the  foundation  of  wise  and 
appropriate  measures  for  carrying  it  into  effect.  But  let  a  man 
adopt  the  opinion  that  slaveholding  is  "  a  heinous  crime  in  the  sight 
of  God,"  and  what  is  the  result?  Then  he  must  regard  every 
slaveholder  as  a  criminal,  to  be  denounced  and  treated  accordingly ; 
no  matter  how  humble,  meek,  holy,  heavenly-minded,  just,  benevo- 
lent, that  slaveholder  may  be  ;  no  matter  how  parental  in  the  treat- 
ment of  his  slaves,  how  assiduous  in  their  religious  improvement, 
how  anxious  to  secure  their  preparation  for  freedom,  he  is,  by  the 
mere  fact  of  holding  slaves,  proved  to  be  a  hypocrite,  a  malevolent 
and  wicked  man.  Now  such  a  judgment  cannot  be  held  without 
perverting  the  moral  sense  of  the  man  who  holds  it.  He  must 
force  himself  to  call  evil  good  and  good  evil.  The  exhibition  of 
Christian  character,  which  ought  to  command  confidence  and 
affection,  and  in  every  healthful  mind  does  command  them,  must 
excite  in  the  mind  poisoned  by  that  false  opinion  disgust  and  hatred. 
A  holy  slaveholder  is  in  his  view  as  much  a  contradiction  as  a  holy 
murderer ;  and  he  cannot  therefore  regard  a  slaveholder  as  a  good 
man.  But  if  (as  what  sane  man  can  doubt  ?)  he  may  be  a  sincere 
Christian,  to  be  in  a  state  of  mind  which  forbids  our  recognising 
him  as  such,  is  to  be  morally  diseased  or  deranged.  According  to 
genuine  High  Church  doctrine,  every  man  baptized  and  in  com- 
munion with  "the  church,"  is  a  Christian,  and  no  man  not  in  such 
communion  can  be  a  Christian,  or  go  to  heaven.  But  as  it  often 
happens  that  many  in  "  the  church  "  are  openly  wicked,  and  many 
out  of  it  are  eminently  holy,  the  High  Churchman,  if  sincere  and 
consistent,  must  regard  the  former  with  complacent  feelings  of 
Christian  brotherhood,  and  the  latter  with  aversion.  It  is,  how- 
ever, one  of  the  most  certain  marks  of  a  true  Christian,  to  recog- 
nise and  love  the  Christian  character  in  others,  and  it  is  one  of  the 


^16 


ABOLITIONISM. 


surest  marks  of  an  unrenewed  heart,  to  feel  aversion  to  those  who 
are  the  true  followers  of  Christ.     The  influence,  therefore,  of  High 
Church  principles  on  those  who  entertain  them,  must,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  be  evil,  and  such  all  experience  shows  to  be  the 
fact.     The   fundamental  principle   of  modern   abolitionism  must 
produce  the  same  effect,  on  those  who  really  embrace  it.     It 
\  must  lead  them  to  hate  good  men;  it  must  cause  them  to  shut  their 
f  eyes  to  truth  ;  to  harden  themselves  against  the  plain  manifestations 
of  excellence.     All  this  produces  an  unnatural  conflict  in  their  own 
minds.    Their  principle  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  slaveholder  is 
a  "heinous  criminal,"  they  see  however  that  he  is  sometimes  a  good 
man  ;  they  will  not  give  up  their  principle  nor  the  conclusion  to 
^  which  it  leads,  they  are  therefore  forced  to  deny  what  they  see  to 
f  be  true.     This  exasperates  them  and  leads  to  the  most  unnatural 
j  exaggeration  of  what  they  call  the  crime  of  slaveholding,  in  order 
j  to  satisfy  their  conscience,  and  justify  them  to  themselves  in  their 
;  hatred  and  denunciation  of  good  men.     This  sometimes  goes  so 
far  as  to  produce   complete    moral   derangement,  when   malice 
assumes  in  the  view  of  the  moral  maniac,  the  appearance  and  cha- 
I  racter  of  benevolence,  and  cursing  and  bitterness  sound  in  his  ears 
like  the  accents  of  love.     Our  country  has  furnished   more  than 
one  example  of  this  kind,  and  the  perverting  influence  of  the  funda- 
mental error  of  the  party  is  as  manifest  as  day  in  the  moral  state 
of  the  great  body  of  those  in  whom  it  exists  as  a  practical  princi- 
ple. 

It  is  no  doubt  true  that  no  man's  character  is  formed  by  one 
opinion  ;  and  therefore  there  are  many  who  belong  to  the  general 
class  of  abolitionists,  who  are  in  spirit  and  conduct,  exemplary 
men.  This,  however,  is  no  disproof  of  the  evil  tendency  of  the 
distinguishing  principle  of  the  party.  In  many  minds  it  exists  as 
little  more  than  a  speculation ;  in  others  its  influence  is  counter- 
acted by  natural  disposition,  by  the  power  of  other  and  right  opi- 
nions, and  by  the  grace  of  God.  But  in  itself,  and  as  far  as  it  is 
allowed  to  operate,  it  is  evident  that  a  principle  which  makes  the 
man  who  entertains  it,  regard  and  denounce  good  men,  who  really 
love  and  serve  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  heinous  criminals,  unfit 
for  Christian  communion,  must  pervert  the  heart,  and,  where  it  has 
its  full  effect,  destroy  all  semblance  of  religion.  It  is  not  invidi- 
ous, nor  otherwise  improper,  to  appeal  to  the  spirit  and  conduct  of 
a  party  in  illustration  of  the  tendency  of  their  distinctive  doctrine, 
and  while  we  admit,  as  above  stated,  that  there  are  many  good 
men  among  the  abolitionists,  we  regard  it  as  a  notorious  fixct,  that 
the  spirit  of  the  party,  as  a  party,  is  an  evil  spirit ;  a  spirit  of  rail- 
ing, of  bitterness,  of  exaggeration  ;  a  spirit  which  leads  to  the  per- 
version of  facts,  and  to  assertions  which  often  shock  the  common 
sense  and  moral  feelings  of  the  community.  What  but  a  spirit 
which  blinds  the  mind,  and  perverts  the  heart,  could  lead,  for  exam- 
ple, to  the  assertion  that  in  our  country  a  minister,  without  injury 
to  his  character,  could  tie  up  his  slave  on  Sabbath  morning,  and 


ABOLITIONISM.  31f 

having  inflicted  a  cruel  punishment,  leave  him  suspended,  go  to 
church,  preach  the  gospel,  and  administer  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
then  return  to  inflict  additional  stripes  on  the  lacerated  back  of 
his  wretched  victim.  To  assert  that  a  clergyman  may  be  a  hypo- 
crite, or  a  forger,  or  a  murderer,  or  a  monster  of  cruelty,  would 
not  shock  the  common  sense  of  men,  for  such  things  have  been  and 
may  well  be  again  ;  but  to  assert  as  characterizmg  the  Christian 
people  in  our  southern  states,  that  a  minister  may  without  injury 
to  his  standing  among  them  be  guilty  of  atrocious  cruelty,  is  a 
flagrant  falsehood,  which  none  but  a  fanatic  could  utter,  and  none 
but  fanati(;s  believe.  And  fanaticism,  be  it  remembered,  is  only 
one  form  of  the  malignant  passions.  Speaking  then  in  general 
terms,  the  spirit  of  the  party,  as  manifested  in  their  publications,  is 
fierce,  bitter  and  abusive,*  as  might  be  expected  from  the  nature 
of  their  fundamental  principle.  Contrast  with  this  for  a  moment 
the  case  of  the  early  Christians.  They  were  obliged  to  separate 
from  the  community  in  which  they  lived,  to  form  a  party  by  them- 
selves, to  denounce  idolatry  as  a  great  sin,  and  idolaters  as  unfit 
for  Christian  Communion.  But  as  their  distinctive  doctrines  were 
true,  the  moral  influence  of  those  doctrines  upon  themselves  was 
good  ;  it  did  not  render  them  as  a  class  fierce,  bitter  and  abusive  ; 
they  were  mild,  kind,  and  conciliatory.  The  same  thing  may  be 
said  of  the  modern  Christian  missionaries  in  every  part  of  the 
world  and  of  every  denomination.  Though  surrounded  by  the 
abominations  of  heathenism,  and  in  continued  conflict  with  error, 
they  are  not  exasperated  men,  dealing  in  denunciations  and  abuse. 
The  reason  why  their  minds  are  composed,  and  in  the  exercise  of 
benevolent  affections,  is  that  truth,  and  not  error,  is  the  principle 
which  controls  them.  They  are  not  called  upon  to  do  violence  to 
their  own  moral  judgments  ;  they  are  not  forced  to  treat  the  good 
as  though  they  were  wicked  ;  and  to  justify  themselves  by  saying 
that  in  despite  of  all  appearances  to  the  contrary,  the  men  and 
things  which  they  denounce,  must  be  evil.  If  then  it  is  true,  that 
the  spirit  of  the  abolitionists,  as  a  party,  and  speaking  in  the  gene- 
ral, is  an  evil  spirit,  it  is  a  decisive  proof  that  their  distinctive  doc- 
trine as  a  party  is  a  false  doctrine.  For  we  are  commanded  to 
judge  of  things  by  their  fruits. 

Another  collateral  proof  of  the  fallacy  of  their  peculiar  views, 
is  that  they  have  failed  to  command  the  assent  of  the  great  body 
of  the  intelligent  and  pious  men  of  the  country.  Every  great 
moral  truth  has  a  self-evidencing  light.  *  To  the  ignorant  or 
depraved    it   may  sometimes  be  difficult   to   communicate   such 

*  This  is  substantially  admitted  even  by  Dr.  Channing,  who  is  claimed  as  the  great 
ornament  of  their  party.  "  The  abolitionists  have  done  wrong,  I  believe  :  nor  is 
their  wrong  to  be  winked  at,  because  done  fanatically,  or  with  good  intentions ;  for 
how  much  mischief  may  be  wrought  with  good  designs  !  They  have  fallen  into  the 
common  error  of  enthusiasts  [fanatics.'],  that  of  exaggerating  their  object,  of  feeling 
as  if  no  evil  existed  but  that  w^hich  they  opposed,  and  as  if  no  guilt  could  be  com- 
pared with  that  of  countenancing  and  upholding  it.  The  tone  of  their  newspapers, 
as  far  as  I  have  seen  th^m,  has  often  been  fierce,  bitter  and  abusive." — Slavery. 
By  William  E.  Channing,  p.  183. 


318  ABOLITIONISM. 

truths ;  that  is,  to  make  them  distinct  objects  in  their  apprehension. 
But  when  understood  or  perceived  they  are  of  necessity  perceived 
to  be  true.  And  the  object  of  discussion  on  such  doctrines,  is  not 
to  prove  them,  but  to  state  them  ;  to  present  them  as  they  are 
before  the  moral  judgment  of  the  mind  ;  for  the  only  wsLy  in 
which  we  can  know  a  thing  to  be  right  or  wrong  is  by  seeing  it 
to  be  the  one  or  the  other.  No  man  was  ever  led  to  the  percep- 
tion of  the  moral  evil  of  a  thing,  by  arguing  from  its  effects.  He 
may  see  that  a  thing,  indifferent  in  itself,  is  wrong  under  circum- 
stances which  make  it  productive  of  evil ;  and  he  may  have  his 
impression  of  the  degree  in  which  a  thing  is  morally  wrong, 
greatly  influenced  by  observing  its  effects  ;  but  all  things  right  or 
wrong  in  themselves  are  immediately  perceived  in  their  true  cha- 
racter by  every  human  mind,  as  soon  as  they  are  fairly  presented 
to  it,  or  clearly  apprehended.  It  is  indeed  admitted  that  the  moral 
judgment  of  men  is  often  influenced  by  their  interests,  or  by  their 
previous  moral  condition.*  These  causes  operate,  however,  by 
either  diverting  the  attention  from  the  true  object,  so  that  it  is  not 
in  fact  properly  perceived  ;  or  by  affecting  favourably  or  other- 
wise the  sensibility  of  the  soul,  and  thus  modifying  the  moral  emo- 
tions by  whose  light  and  under  whose  guidance  the  judgment  of 
the  mind  is  formed.  The  question  whether  heretics  should  be  put 
to  death,  if  it  could  be  presented  clearly  to  dispassionate  men, 
could  receive  but  one  answer.  The  reason  why  some  affirm  and 
others  deny  the  propriety  of  such  executions,  is,  that  entirely  dif- 
ferent questions  are  really  before  their  minds.  To  a  Protestant 
the  question  is,  whether  a  man  in  the  exercise  of  a  discretion  for 
which  he  is  responsible  to  God  alone,  can  justly  be  punished  for 
the  wrong  exercise  of  that  discretion,  by  those  who  have  neither 
the  competency  nor  right  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  case.  That 
question  every  human  being  must  answer  in  the  negative.  But  to 
a  genuine  Romanist,  the  question  is,  whether  a  man  who  is  guilty 
of  an  atrocious  crime  should  be  punished  at  the  discretion  of  those 
who  are  infallible  in  judgment  on  such  matters,  and  who  have  full 
authority  to  carry  their  judgment  into  effect.  This  again  is  a 
question  which  every  man  must  answer  in  the  affirmative.  The 
fact,  therefore,  that  men  make  different  answers  to  questions 
involving  grave  points  in  morals,  is  no  disproof  of  the  self-evidenc- 
ing light  of  moral  truth  ;  and  of  the  legitimate  authority  with 
which  it  commands  assent  when  it  is  clearly  presented  to  the 
mind.  This  being  admitted,  we  say  that  the  fact  that  the  great 
mass  of  the  intelligent  and  pious  men  of  the  country  reject  the 
doctrine  that  "  slaveholding  is  a  heinous  crime  in  the  sight  of  God," 
is  proof  that  it  is  false.  For  this  fact  cannot  be  accounted  for  by 
saying  they  do  not  understand  the  question  ;  that  the  thing  denied 
is  not  rightly  conceived  of,  or  is  not  clearly  presented  to  their 
minds.  Every  man  knows  what  slaveholding  is ;  and  men  know 
what  they  mean  when  they  deny  that  it  is  in  its  very  nature  crimi- 
nal.    Nor  can  it  be  said,  that  this  judgment  arises  from  want  of 


ABOLITIONISM.  319 

attention  to  the  subject.  There  are  many  things  to  which  even 
good  men  give'  an  indolent  assent  as  right,  which,  when  they  come 
to  consider,  they  see  to  be  wrong.  This  was  the  case  with  the 
slave-trade,  and  many  other  instances  of  a  similar  nature  might  be 
adduced.  There  are  also  many  things  which  are  long  regarded 
as  right,  because  they  really  are  right  upon  the  assumption  of  the 
correctness  of  the  principles  adopted  by  those  who  pronounce  the 
judgment.  Thus  putting  heretics  to  death  is  right,  on  the  assumption 
of  the  infallibility  of  the  church,  and  of  its  right  to  enforce  its  judg- 
ments by  civil  penalties.  In  the  present  case  the  judgment  of  the 
conscience  of  the  country  on  the  subject  of  slaveholding,  cannot  be 
set  aside  on  the  ground  of  want  of  consideration.  The  matter 
has  been  discussed  in  every  way  for  a  series  of  years,  and  that 
judgment  is  becoming  the  more  fixed,  the  more  it  is  enlightened. 

Nor  can  this  judgment  be  invalidated  by  attributing  it  to  self- 
interest.  We  readily  admit  that  if  a  man  is  personally  interested 
in  the  decision  of  a  question,  he  is  not  a  fair  judge  in  the  case. 
The  landholders  in  England  sincerely  believe  the  corn  laws  to  be 
beneficial ;  the  manufacturers  as  sincerely  believe  the  reverse. 
Among  ourselves,  the  growers  of  cotton  honestly  hold  one  system 
of  political  economy,  and  the  growers  of  hemp  another.  It  is 
hardly  possible  for  a  man,  whose  interests  are  deeply  involved  in  any 
question,  to  avoid  allowing  his  mind  to  dwell  unduly  upon  those 
considerations  which  favour  the  decision  which  he  desires,  nor  is 
he  qualified  to  give  the  opposite  considerations  their  proper  weight. 
But  we  deny  that  the  great  body  of  intelligent  and  good  men  in 
this  country  are  under  the  bias  of  interest,  in  the  judgment  which 
they  give  concerning  slavery.  They  have  no  selfish  interest  in 
the  matter.  Those  dwelling  in  non-slaveholding  States  might 
arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  slaveholding  is  a  sin,  without  endan- 
gering any  of  their  personal  interests,  or  disquieting  their  consci- 
ence in  the  least.  They  are  just  as  free  from  selfish  bias  in  the 
case  as  though  sitting  in  judgment  on  the  despotism  of  Russia. 
The  unbiased  judgment,  therefore,  of  the  great  mass  of  intelligent 
and  pious  men  in  this  country  that  slaveholding  is  not  a  crime, 
given  after  due  consideration,  is  itself  an  argument  not  to  be 
gainsaid,  against  the  primary  principle  of  the  abolitionists. 

It  may  be  asked  how  we  know  that  such  is  the  judgment  of  the 
intelligent  and  good  men  of  the  country  ?  The  answer  is,  that 
is  a  conceded  point.  What  is  more  common  here  or  abroad  than 
the  assertion  that  the  church  and  the  clergy  in  this  country,  are 
the  great  enemies  of  abolition  ?  What  topic  of  denunciation  is 
more  frequent  in  all  the  publications  of  the  party  than  the  corrup- 
tion of  the  church  on  this  subject,  and  how  loud  the  complaints 
that  no  church  has  yet  been  brought  up  to  take  ground  with  the 
abolitionists  ?  Now  v^^e  suppose  no  one,  not  even  an  abolitionist, 
will  deny  that  the  church,  meaning  thereby  all  in  this  great 
country  who  profess  to  be  the  followers  of  Christ,  comprises  a 
large  portion  of  the  intelligence  and  piety  of  the  country ;  and  as 


889'  ABOLITIONISM. 

to  the  educated  men  not  included  among  the  members  of  the  church, 
it  is  plain  that  a  still  smaller  portion  belong  to  the  ranks  of  abolition- 
ism. No  church  (i.  e.,  denomination  of  Christians)  of  any  consider- 
ation for  numbers,  has  adopted  the  principle  that  slaveholders  as 
such  should  be  excluded  from  Christian  communion.  The  Con- 
gregationalists  of  New  England,  the  Episcopalians,  the  Presbyte- 
rians, the  Baptists,  the  Methodists,  have  one  and  all  refused  to 
sanction  the  unscriptural  doctrine  on  which  the  whole  structure  of 
moral  abolitionism  rests.  Now  we  consider  it  little  less  than 
preposterous  to  assume  that  a  mere  fraction  of  the  great  family  of 
Christians  should,  on  a  simple  question  of  morals,  be  in  the  right, 
and  the  great  mass  of  their  brethren,  with  the  same  advantages  for 
forming  a  correct  judgment,  in  the  wrong. 

But  have  not  the  abolitionists  the  voice  of  the  church  in  Great 
Britain  in  their  favour  ?  Far  from  it.  There  is  indeed  a  great 
deal  of  loose  declamation,  and  no  little  fanatical  zeal  on  this  subject 
prevailing  in  that  country.  But  when  did  any  denomination  of 
Christians  in  Great  Britain  assume  the  ground  that  slaveholders 
should  be  excluded  from  the  church  ?  We  are  not  aware  that  the 
missionaries  of  the  Church  of  England,  or  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land, or  of  the  Independents,  or  of  the  Methodists,  or  of  the 
Baptists,  or  of  the  Moravians,  operating  in  countries  where  slavery 
existed,  were  ever  directed  or  authorized  to  act  upon  the  principle 
of  debarring  all  slaveholders  from  the  table  of  the  Lord.  That  is 
a  step  towards  the  subversion  of  the  scriptures  as  a  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  yet  to  be  taken.  And  the  day  we  trust  is  far  distant 
when  this  form  of  benevolent  infidelity  shall  receive  the  sanction 
of  any  of  the  great  bodies  into  which  the  church  is  now  divided. 

Strong  as  these  arguments  against  the  doctrine  of  the  abolition- 
ists, derived  from  its  necessary  and  actual  effects,  and  from  the 
judgment  of  the  great  mass  of  competent  judges,  are,  we  admit  they 
would  be  driven  to  the  wind  by  one  clear  declaration  of  scripture 
in  its  favour.  Let  God  be  true,  but  every  man  a  liar.  Into  this 
scriptural  argument,  however,  we  cannot  persuade  ourselves  to 
enter  at  any  length,  because  the  matter  does  not  admit  of  argument. 
It  is  as  plain  as  it  can  be  made.  A  few  years  ago,  when  a  spirit  of 
fanaticism  seized  the  friends  of  temperance,  much  learning  was 
expended  in  the  attempt  to  prove  that  the  Bible  condemned  as 
sinful  even  the  moderate  use  of  intoxicating  liquor.  Now  what 
has  become  of  that  doctrine  ?  The  plain  sense  of  the  scripture, 
like  a  mighty  stream,  has  borne  away  all  the  learned  rubbish  so 
laboriously  raked  together,  and  would  have  done  so  had  no  attempt 
been  made,  able  and  conclusive  as  those  attempts  were,  to  remove 
that  rubbish  by  other  means.  In  like  manner  the  scriptures  do  so 
plainly  teach  that  slaveholding  is  not  in  itself  a  crime,  that  it  is  a 
mere  waste  of  time  to  attempt  to  prove  it ;  and  a  great  deal  worse 
than  a  waste  of  time  to  attempt  to  make  them  teach  the  contrary. 

It  will  of  course  be  admitted  that  what  God  has  at  any  time 
sanctioned  cannot  be  evil  in  its  own  nature.     If,  therefore,  it  can 


ABOLITIONISM.  321 

be  shown  that  God  did  permit  his  people  under  the  old  dispensa- 
tion to  be  slaveholders,  slaveholding  in  itself  cannot  be  a  heinous 
crime.  It  will  further  be  admitted  that  anything  permitted  under 
the  old  economy,  and  which  the  apostles  continued  to  permit  to 
those  whom  they  received  into  the  church,  cannot  be  a  crime 
justifying  exclusion  from  Christian  communion. 

That  God  did  under  the  old  dispensation  permit  his  people  to 
hold  slaves  is  proved  not  only  by  the  fact  that  Abraham  was,  with 
the  implied  permission  of  God,  a  slaveholder,  but  especially  by  the 
fact  that  through  Moses  that  permission  was  expressly  granted,  the 
class  of  persons  who  might  be  held  in  slavery  designated,  the  differ- 
ent ways  in  which  they  might  be  reduced  to  a  state  of  bondage 
pointed  out,  and  laws  enacted  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they  were 
to  be  treated.  All  these  are  plain  matters  of  fact,  admitted,  as  far 
as  we  know,  by  every  man,  woman  and  child,  who  ever  read  the 
Bible,  until  the' lurid  day  of  modern  illumination.  These  facts  are 
abundantly  proved  by  Dr.  Junkin  and  Mr,  Graham  in  the  pamph- 
lets which  stand  in  the  margin  of  this  article,  and  to  which  we  refer 
any  of  our  readers  who  have  any  doubt  on  the  subject.  We  shall 
content  ourselves  with  merely  citing  a  few  passages  from  the  laws 
of  Moses,  allowing  them  to  speak  for  themselves. 

What  however  is  a  slave  ?  Before  determining  whether  slavery 
is  recognised  in  the  Bible,  we  must  know  what  slavery  is.  "  A 
slave,"  says  the  reviewer  of  Dr.  Junkin's  pamphlet,  "  is  a  human 
being  who  is  made  an  article  of  property."  And  this  is  the  defini- 
tion usually  given  by  abolitionists.  The  gravamen  of  the  charge 
against  slavery  is,  that  it  makes  a  man  a  thing  in  distinction  from 
a  person.  This  charge  is  an  absurdity  in  the  very  terms  of  it;  and 
yet  we  doubt  not  that  it  is  some  obscure  feeling  of  the  outrage  to 
human  nature  involved  in  making  "  a  man  a  thing,"  that  is  the  source 
of  much  of  the  horror  commonly  expressed  on  this  subject ;  and 
the  reason  of  the  ready  credence  often  given  to  the  doctrine  that 
"slaveholding  is  a  heinous  crime."  It  would  indeed  be  a  great 
crime,  and  moreover  a  great  miracle,  if  it  involved  making  things 
of  human  beings.  Under  no  system  of  slave-laws  that  ever 
existed  is  a  slave  regarded  otherwise  than  as  a  person,  that  is,  an 
intelligent  moral  agent.  Those  very  laws,  atrocious  as  they  often 
are,  by  holding  the  slave  responsible  for  his  acts,  suppose  him  to  be 
a  human  being.  The  abolitionists  impose  upon  themselves  and 
others  by  not  defining  what  they  mean  by  property,  and  by  not 
determining  the  sense  in  which  one  man  can  be  said  to  be  the  pro- 
perty of  another  man.  Property  is  simply  the  right  of  possession 
and  use ;  the  right  of  having  and  using.  From  the  necessity  of 
the  case,  as  well  as  from  the  laws  of  God,  this  right  must  vary 
according  to  the  nature  of  its  object.  If  a  man  has  property  in 
land,  he  must  use  it  as  land,  and  he  cannot  use  it  as  anything  else. 
If  he  has  property  in  an  animal  he  can  use  it  only  as  an  animal ; 
and  if  he  has  property  in  a  man,  he  can  use  him  only  as  a  man. 
And  as  the  use  he  may  make  of  an  animal  is  regulated   by  its 

21 


322  ABOLITIONISM. 

nature  and  by  the  laws  of  God  ;  so  his  property  in  a  man  gives 
him  no  right  to  treat  him  contrary  to  his  nature,  or  to  act  towards 
him  with  injustice.     If  one  man  has  property  in  another  he  must 
still  treat  him  as  a  human  being  ;  if  he  kills  him  he  is  guilty  of  mur- 
der ;  if  he  insults  or  wounds  him  he  is  guilty  of  cruelty ;  if  he 
shuts  him  out  from  the  gospel,  he  will  find  the  blood  of  a  soul  upon 
his  hands ;  if  he  keep  him  in  ignorance,  he  is  guilty  of  gross  injus- 
tice.    The  right  of  property,  even  if  admitted,  gives  no  right  to  do 
any  of  the  things  just  mentioned.     It  gives  in  some  cases   the 
power  to  do  them,  just  as  the  right  of  a  parent  to  the  control  of  his 
children  gives  liim  the  power  of  rendering  them  miserable,  of 
depriving  them  of  the  gospel,  and  of  bringing  them  up  in  igno- 
rance.    But  it  confers  no  right  to  do  these  things.     It  is  the  con- 
fused notion  which  they  entertain  of  the  right  of  property  which 
leads  the  writers  on  this  subject  into  most  of  their  false  reasoning. 
**  If,"  says  the  Reviewer  before  quoted,  "  A  may  justly  hold  B  as 
property,  as  he  holds  his  land,  cattle,  &c. ;  it  necessarily  follows 
that  A  may  justly  sell  B  to  be  separated  from  his  wife,  and  B's 
children  to  be  separated  from  their  parents."     P.  59.     He  might 
as  well  say,  that  because  a  man  may  justly  hold  cattle  as  property, 
as  he  holds  his  lands  or  trees,  therefore  he  may  justly  treat  his 
cattle  as  if  they  were  made  of  wood.     His  property  in  cattle  gives 
him  no  right  to  use  them  in  any  way  in  which  sentient  creatures 
ought  not  to  be  used  ;  and  his  property  in  a  man  gives  him  no 
right    to   use    hiniy    in   any  way  in    which  a  rational,  immortal 
being,  his  equal  in  the  sight  of  God,  may  not  properly  be  used. 
The  right  of  property  is  merely  the  right  to  have  and   to    use 
a  thing   according  to  its    nature ;  and  as  a  man  has  a  rational, 
moral,  and  social  nature,  it  is  no  more  an  incident  of  the  right 
of  property  in  him,  that   these    attributes   may  be   disregarded, 
than  it  is  an  incident  of  the  right  of  property  in  an  ox  or  horse 
that    their  nature   as   sentient    creatures   may   be    disregarded. 
What  men  have  the  power  to  do,  in  virtue  of  the  relation  in  which 
they  stand  to  others,  and  what  they  have  a  right  to  do  in  virtue  of 
that  relation,  are  two  very  different  things,  which  abolitionists  con- 
stantly confound.     As  already  remarked,   the   parental   relation 
gives  a  man  the  power  to  do  a  thousand  things  he  has  no  right  to 
do ;  so  the  relation  between  master  and  slave,  assuming  it  to  be  a 
perfectly  righteous  one,  gives  the  former  the  power  to  do  many 
things  which  that  relation  cannot  justify.     The  only  right  of  pro- 
perty which  one  man  has  or  can  have  in  another,  is  a  right  to  his 
services  ;  just  as  his  right  of  property  in  a  horse  is  a  right  to  have 
and  use  him  as  a  horse.     And  as  the  obligation  arises  out  of 
ownership  in  the  latter  case,  to  provide  for  the  wants  of  the  horse, 
as  a  sentient  creature,  so  the  obligation  arises  out  of  the  ownership 
in  the  former  case,  to  provide  for  the  wants  of  the  man,  not  only 
as  a  sentient,  but  as  a  rational,  moral,  social  and  immortal  being. 
And  as  the  man  who,  on  the  plea  of  ownership,  should  neglect  the 
wants  of  his  horse,  would  be  self  condemned  ;  so  the  man  who, 


ABOLITIONISM. 


on  a  similar  plea,  neglects  the  infinitely  more  pressing  wants  of  his 
slave,  as  a  rational  creature,  will  be  condemned  by  the  united 
judgment  of  God  and  man.  If  abolitionists  could  disabuse  their 
minds  of  their  crude  ideas  on  the  subject  of  property,  though  they 
might  find  they  had  lost  almost  all  their  stock  in  trade,  they  would 
at  least  have  the  satisfaction  of  understanding  what  they  are  writing 
about,  and  might  be  induced  to  adopt  wiser  measures  for  accom- 
plishing their  object. 

It  follows  from  what  has  been  said  of  the  right  of  property,  as 
consisting  in  the  right  of  having  and  using,  that  it  may  be  trans- 
ferable. It  is  not  necessarily  so,  as  a  man  may  have  a  full  right 
to  have  and  use  a  thing,  when  he  cannot  transfer  that  right  to 
another.  This  is  often  the  case  when  a  certain  property  is  attach- 
ed to  an  office  or  a  title.  In  other  cases  the  right  of  transfer  may 
be  restricted  by  certain  conditions  ;  as  when  slaves  are  bound  to 
the  soil.  Their  owner  can  sell  them  only  on  condition  of  selling 
the  land  on  which  they  live.  The  price  he  receives  is  not  the 
mere  value  of  the  land,  but  the  value  of  the  land  together  with  the 
value  of  his  right  to  the  service  of  those  living  upon  it.  In  ordi- 
nary cases,  however,  the  right  of  property  is  transferable.  If  I 
have  a  right  to  the  possession  or  use  of  anything,  I  may  give,  or 
sell,  or  bequeathe  that  right  to  another.  Of  course,  however,  I  can 
give  only  what  I  possess  ;  and  as  my  right  of  property  in  a  man 
is  and  can  be  nothing  more  than  the  right  to  his  services,  that  is  all 
I  can  transfer  to  another  ;  and  this  right  must  go  with  all  the 
responsibilities  which  of  necessity  attach  to  it  ;  the  responsibility 
of  providing  for  his  wants  as  a  man,  who  has  a  soul  as  well  as  a 
body.  When,  therefore,  we  speak  of  buying  and  selling  men,  all 
that  is  or  can  be  meant  is  the  transfer  of  this  right  of  service  ;  a 
right  of  necessity  limited  and  defined  by  the  nature  of  the  being 
whose  services  are  to  be  rendered.  A  man's  right  to  the  services 
of  another  may  be  unconditional,  so  that  he  may  transfer  it  at  any 
time  or  to  any  person  ;  or  it  may  be  so  limited  that  he  can  trans- 
fer it  only  when  he  transfers  the  land  on  which  the  man  lives  ;  or 
his  right  may  extend  to  only  a  part  of  his  time,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  old  feudal  tenures  ;  or  to  a  particular  kind  of  service  only,  such 
as  that  due  from  a  feudal  proprietor  to  his  lord,  or  from  a  subject 
to  his  sovereign.  But  whatever  the  right  is,  it  is  generally  trans- 
ferable, and  therefore  we  find  subjects  passing  from  one  sovereign 
to  another,  serfs  from  one  landlord  to  another,  and  slaves  from  one 
master  to  another :  and  in  all  these  cases,  which  in  principle  are 
the  same,  there  is  nothing  more  than  the  transfer  of  the  right  of 
service. 

Another  obvious  remark  which  flows  from  what  has  been  said  is^ 
that  the  nature  of  the  relation  between  a  master  and  his  slaves  does 
not  depend  upon  the  mode  in  which  that  relation  is  constituted,  or 
upon  the  time  it  is  to  continue.  Any  man  who  is  the  property  of 
another  man,  is,  by  the  admitted  definition  of  the  term,  a  slave. 
It  matters  not,  as  far  as  the  nature  of  the  relation  is  concerned^ 


334  ABOLITIONISM. 

whether  that  right  of  property  was  acquired  by  gift,  inheritance  or 
purchase  ;  and  if  by  purchase,  it  matters  not  whether  the  man  was 
sold  by  himself,  or  his  parents,  or  by  a  former  owner,  or  by  the 
state  in  punishment  of  some  crime.     The  validity  and  justice  of  a 
man's  title  to  any  property,  do  indeed  depend  upon  the  immediately 
prior  title  whence  it  is  derived.     And  if  the  proposition  of  the 
abolitionists  was  that  the  right  of  property  in  man,  unless  acquired 
in  a  proper  way,  cannot  be  justly  claimed  or  exercised,  it  would  be 
perfectly  harmless.    It  would  be  analogous  to  a  declaration  that 
landholding  under  a  fraudulent  title  is  unjust.     But  would  it  hence 
follow  that  landholding  is  a  heinous  crime  ?     Their  proposition 
is  that  slaveholding  is  a  crime  ;  and  their  argument  is  that  one 
man  cannot  rightfully   own  another  man  ;   that  from  his  nature 
man  cannot  be  an  article  of  property  ;  and  they  attempt  to  sustain 
this  argument  from  scripture  by  trying  to  show  that  the  Bible,  so 
far  from  authorizing  one  man's  owning  another,  expressly  forbids 
it.     Having  shown  that  ovmership  in  man  includes  and  can  include 
nothing  more  than  a  right  to  his  services,  our  object  in  this  para- 
graph is  to  prove  the  fallacy  of  the  above  argument,  by  showing 
first  that  it  is  so  broad  as  to  include  all  modes  of  acquiring  this 
right  ot  property,  smce  it  condemns  the  thing  itself;  and  secondly, 
that  when  they  come  to  the  scriptures,  they  attempt  to  evade  their 
authority  by  resting  their  condemnation  not  on  the  thing  itself,  not 
on  the  mere  fact  of  one  man's  owning  another,  but  on  the  particu- 
lar mode  in  which  he  acquires  his  right  as  owner,  and  on  the  length 
of  time  he  exercises  it     But  if  the  fundamental  principle  of  the 
abolitionists  is  correct,  it  obviously  makes  no  difference  how  the 
relation  of  master  and  slave  is  constituted.     However  ownership 
in  man  is  acquired,  it  must,  according  to  their  doctrine,  be  unjust 
and  offensive  to  God.     If  a  man  reduced  to  poverty,  not  knowing 
how  to  obtain  a  support,  comes  to  another  and  offers  to  serve  him 
all  his  life,  if  the  law  of  the  land  recognises  such  a  contract,  he 
becomes  a  slave  ;  he  belongs  to  his  master  in  the  fullest  sense  in 
which  one  man  can  belong  to  another.     This  is  what  the  Egyp- 
tians did,  when  under  the  pressure  of  famine,  having  sold  every- 
thing they  had,  they  came  to  Joseph  and  said:  Buy  us  and  our 
land  for  bread  ;  and  Joseph  gave  them  bread  and  said.  Behold  I 
have  bought  you  and  your  land  for  Pharaoh.     Here  is  an  instance 
of  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  constituted  by  voluntary  con- 
tract.    And  there  are  numerous  cases  of  a  like  kind  recorded  in 
scripture  on  a  less  extensive  scale.     Now  suppose  that  a  man  who 
had  in  this  way  acquired  the  right  of  property  to  a  number  of 
men,  should,  as  a  gift  or  for  money,  transfer  that  right  to  another, 
would  its  nature  be  altered  by  the  transfer  ?     Would  the  men  be 
more  slaves  in  the  second  case  than  in  the  former  ?     Would  the 
first  master  be  entitled  to  lift  clean  hands  to  God,  and  the  second 
be  a  man-stealer,  and  everything  else  that  abolitionists  call  slave- 
holders ?     It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  the  nature  of  the  relation  or 
iheir  principle,  does  not  depend  on  the  mode  in  which  it  is  con- 


ABOLITIONISM.  325 

stitutcd.  If  a  man  sells  himself  he  is  as  much  a  slave  as  if  sold  by 
another  man,  and  consequently  the  abolitionists  cannot  evade  the 
authority  of  the  sacred  scriptures,  by  saying  (though  without  evi- 
dence) that  the  slaves  the  Israelites  were  permitted  to  hold,  sold 
themselves.  Suppose  they  did,  their  masters  were  still  slaveholders, 
and  therefore,  according  to  their  doctrine,  guilty  of  a  heinous  crime 
against  God. 

Nor  does  the  nature  of  the  relation  between  master  and  slave 
depend  on  the  length  of  time  for  which  it  is  to  continue.  A  man  sold 
for  a  term  of  years  is  as  much  a  slave  as  a  man  sold  for  life.  This 
is  evident  from  the  definition  of  the  word  slave,  as  one  who  belongs 
to  another ;  from  the  usage  of  scripture  and  of  human  laws  on  the 
subject.  In  most  of  the  states  in  which  slavery  has  been  abolished, 
it  was  enacted  that  slaves  born  after  a  certain  year  should  be  free 
at  the  age  of  twenty-one  or  twenty-five  years.  Until  that  age  they 
were  slaves  ;  subject  to  all  the  laws  relating  to  that  class  of  persons. 
It  hence  follows,  that  if  the  Bible  sanctioned  slaveholding  for  a 
term  of  years,  it  sanctioned  what  abolitionists  condemn  as  a 
heinous  crime.  The  validity  of  the  argument  therefore  against 
the  abolitionists,  drawn  from  the  laws  of  Moses,  does  not  depend 
on  the  question  whether  the  slaves  there  spoken  of  sold  themselves, 
or  whether  their  bondage  was  perpetual  or  ceased  at  the  year  of 
Jubilee.  If  they  were  sold  so  as  to  belong  to  another  man  for  life 
or  for  a  term  of  years,  they  were  for  the  time  being  slaves. 

If  the  abolitionists  turn  round  and  say  their  arguments  are 
directed  against  involuntary  and  perpetual  bondage,  we  answer, 
1.  That  such  is  not  the  fact.  Their  denunciations  are  directed 
against  slaveholding,  against  making  men  property,  an  article  of 
traflic  to  be  bought  and  sold.  But  a  slave  who  sold  himself,  as 
the  Egyptians  did,  may  be  sold  by  his  master  for  life  or  a  term  of 
years,  as  well  as  a  man  who  was  born  a  slave.  And,  therefore, 
their  arguments  are  not  in  point  of  fact  confined  to  slavery  which 
is  involuntary  and  perpetual.  2.  In  a  multitude  of  cases  in  our 
own  country  and  elsewhere,  slaves  prefer  to  remain  the  properly 
of  their  masters,  secure  of  an  abundant  support,  when  in  health, 
and  of  a  comfortable  maintenance  in  sickness  and  old  age.  In  all 
such  cases,  slaveholding  is  not  a  heinous  crime,  if  involuntary  bon- 
dage alone  is  slavery.  Yet  it  is  notorious  that  the  class  of  slave- 
holders whose  slaves  prefer  to  remain  such,  are  not  exempted 
from  the  denunciations  of  the  abolitionists.  They  are  considered 
as  holding  an  unlawful  relation  to  their  fellow  men,  as  much 
as  though  they  were  living  in  adultery  or  in  any  other 
acknowledged  crime.  The  very  question  as  stated  by  the  aboli- 
tionists is,  whether  those  professing  Christians  who  hold  slaves  are 
guilty  of  a  sin  which  calls  for  the  censure  of  the  church  ?  3.  This 
change  of  position  is  of  course  a  concession  that  slaveholding  is 
not  in  itself  a  sin.  A  man  may  be  an  article  of  property,  he  may 
be  bought  and  sold,  he  may  be  a  slave,  provided  he  only  consents 
to  be  so.     Slaveholding,  then,  is  like  landholding,  right  or  wrong. 


ABOLITIONISM. 

according  to  circumstances.  The  propriety  of  both  depends  on  the 
validity  of  the  title.  It  is  sinful  for  a  man  to  keep  possession  of  a 
piece  of  land,  to  which  he  has  no  other  title  than  force  or  fraud  ; 
and  it  is  sinful  for  one  man  to  hold  another  as  a  slave  unless  he 
has  a  legitimate  title  to  his  services.  The  whole  question  now  is, 
what  is  a  legitimate  title  ?  Abolitionists  are  forced,  inconsistently 
indeed,  to  admit  that  consent  of  parties  confers  a  good  title.  But 
can  such  title  be  acquired  in  no  other  way  ?  A  full  answer  to  that 
question  would  require  a  thorough  examination  of  the  origin  of  the 
right  of  property,  and  of  the  circumstances  which  rightfully  give 
one  man  a  claim,  more  or  less  extended,  to  the  services  of  another. 
Such  an  examination,  however,  the  present  occasion  forbids,  and 
our  object  does  not  demand  it.  It  is  enough  to  remark,  1.  That  the 
validity  of  the  present  title  of  a  man  to  his  property  does  not  de- 
pend on  the  validity  of  the  title  of  the  original  possessor  from 
whom  the  right  is  derived.  That  is  to  say,  the  title  which  the 
people  of  this  country  have  to  their  farms,  does  not  depend  upon 
the  question  whether  the  Pope  and  the  sovereigns  of  Europe  had 
a  right  to  take  this  country  from  the  Indians,  and  give  it  to  whom 
they  pleased.  Most  landholders  in  New  Jersey  trace  their  titles 
to  the  gift  by  Charles  II.  to  the  Duke  of  York.  If  it  be  admit- 
ted that  Charles  had  no  valid  right  to  the  soil,  and  therefore  could 
convey  none  to  his  brother,  nor  his  brother  to  the  original  propri- 
etors who  purchased  from  him,  it  will  not  follow  that  the  title  of 
the  present  holders  of  the  soil  is  invalid  or  unrighteous.  Neither 
does  it  follow  from  the  simple  fact  that  the  ancestors  of  the  slaves 
now  in  this  country  were  most  unrighteously  obtained,  that  the 
title  of  the  owners  of  the  present  generation  is  necessarily  invalid. 
2.  It  may  be  remarked  that  the  right  of  ownership  of  one  man  in 
another,  that  is,  a  right  to  his  services,  may  arise  from  dependence. 
If  that  dependence  is  absolute  and  perpetual,  so  will  the  right  of 
property  be.  If  it  is  only  partial  and  temporary,  the  right  arising 
from  it  will  in  like  manner  be  partial  and  temporary.  Depend- 
ence is  one  of  the  sources  at  least  of  the  obligation  of  children  to 
render  service  to  their  parents  ;  and  the  assumption  of  such  de- 
pendence of  feudal  serfs  on  their  lords,  and  of  subjects  on  their 
sovereigns,  is  made  one  great  ground  of  the  claim  of  the  latter  to 
the  services  of  the  former.  If,  therefore,  one  man  was  absolutely 
dependent  on  another  for  support  and  protection,  he  would  be  his 
slave,  that  is,  he  would  be  righteously  bound  to  render  him  service. 
This  remark  is  made  simply  as  indicating  one  of  the  ways  in  which 
the  relation  between  master  and  slave  might  originate  without 
injustice.  3.  But  as  all  slaves  in  this  country  were  born  such,  the 
only  practically  important  question  is,  whether  a  constitution  of 
society  in  which  one  man  is  by  birth  placed  in  such  a  relation  to 
another  man  as  to  be  bound  to  labour  for  him,  upon  condition  of 
having  all  his  wants  as  a  human  being  adequately  supplied,  is 
necessarily  sinful  ?  That  question  cannot  be  answered  in  the 
affirmative,  without  asserting  that  it  is  sinful  to  have  the  relative 


ABOLITIONISM.  327 

position  of  men  in  society  determined  by  the  accident  of  birth. 
And  this  latter  position  cannot  be  maintained,  without  contradict- 
ing the  Bible  and  the  common  judgment  of  mankind.  By  divine 
appointment,  under  the  old  dispensation,  one  man  was  born  High 
Priest,  the  most  important  position  in  the  community,  another  an 
ordinary  priest,  another  a  simple  Levite,  another  a  layman,  who 
could  never  attain  to  the  privileges  of  the  other  classes,  and 
another  a  hewer  of  wood  and  drawer  of  water.  Such  an  arrange- 
ment cannot  in  itself  be  sinful,  because  God  ordained  it ;  nor  does 
the  light  of  nature  contradict  this  decision  of  the  word  of  God.  In 
some  states  of  society  this  might  be  the  best  method  of  distributing 
the  various  classes  of  the  community,  in  others  it  might  be  hifjhly 
injurious.  It  is  therefore  neither  forbidden  nor  commanded.  Men 
are  left  at  liberty  to  determine  the  mode  in  which  society  shall  be 
constituted,  guided  by  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  community, 
and  the  immutable  obligation  to  adopt  that  method  which  is  for  the 
general  good.  Moreover,  neither  the  church  nor  world  has  ever 
maintained  that  hereditary  monarchy  and  hereditary  nobility  were 
in  their  own  nature  sinful,  so  that  no  man  can  be  a  monarch  or  a 
noble  without  committing  heinous  crime  in  the  sight  of  God.  And 
even  if  the  monarch  were  possessed  of  irresponsible  power  over  the 
property  and  lives  of  his  subjects,  undesirable  and  impossible  as  such 
a  form  of  government  would  be,  in  an  advanced  state  of  society, 
it  would  not  in  its  nature  be  sinful.  Even  Mr.  Birney,  the  aboli- 
tion candidate  for  the  Presidency,  has  admitted  that  his  conscience 
would  allow  him  to  possess  the  unlimited  power  of  a  Roman  Em- 
peror, though  it  would  direct  him  to  use  that  power  for  the  benefit 
of  his  subjects.  But  if  the  word  of  God  does  not  condemn  as 
sinful  either  the  possession  of  unlimited  power,  or  the  designation 
by  the  accident  of  birth  of  the  person  who  is  to  hold  it ;  then 
it  is  admitted  that  it  is  not  necessarily  sinful  that  one  man  should 
by  birth  be  assigned  to  the  rank  of  king,  noble,  or  master,  and 
another  to  that  of  subject,  commoner,  or  slave.  As  this  diversity 
of  condition  among  men  has  always  existed,  as  there  have  always 
been  masters  and  servants,  if  there  is  nothing  sinful  in  the  nature 
of  the  relation,  neither  is  there  in  its  being  determined  by  birth. 

Does  then  the  word  of  God  sanction  this  relation  ?  Did  it  per- 
mit the  Israelites  to  own  men,  to  buy  and  sell  them?  If  so,  then 
no  man  who  can  bow  his  heart  and  conscience  to  the  authority  of 
God,  can  pronounce  slaveholding  to  be  a  heinous  crime.  It  is 
conceded  that  the  heathen  by  whom  these  patriarchs  and  their 
descendants  were  surrounded,  were  slaveholders  in  the  strictest 
sense  of  the  term.  This  was  the  case  with  the  Egyptians,  the 
Midianites,  and  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan.  The  Reviewer  of 
Dr.  Junkin  allows  that  Joseph  in  the  house  of  Potiphar  was  pro- 
perly called  a  Hebrew  slave,  and  that  the  servants  given  by  Abi- 
melech  to  Abraham  were  slaves,  since  Abimelech  was  a  heathen. 
But  on  what  evidence  does  this  conviction  rest  that  the  heathen 
of  that  age  were  slaveholders  ?     It  rests  on  the  fact  that  the  Scrip- 


3^  ABOLITIONISM. 

tures  speak  of  their  having,  buying,  selling,  and  giving  away  men 
as  servants.  This  is  regarded  as  sufficient.  But  all  this  is  recorded 
of  the  Patriarchs  and  of  the  Hebrews  under  Moses.  Abraham  is 
spoken  of  as  having  men  servants  and  maid  servants,  they  are  enu- 
merated as  a  part  of  his  possessions ;  he  is  said  to  have  received 
slavps  as  a  present :  Abimeiech  took  sheep  and  oxen,  and  men 
servants  and  maid  servants,  and  gave  them  unto  Abraham.  Gen. 
XX.,  14.  Pharaoh  had  before  made  him  a  similar  gift,  for  it  is  said, 
he  entreated  Abram  well  for  Sarah's  sake,  and  he  had  sheep,  and 
oxen,  and  he  asses,  and  men  servants,  and  maid  servants.  He 
circumcised  "  all  that  were  bought  with  his  money."  Hagar  was 
his  bond-woman,  and  as  such  is  contrasted  with  Sarah  who  was  a 
free  woman.  All  that  the  apostle  says  of  this  case  in  Gal.  iv., 
21-31,  depends  for  its  significancy  on  the  fact  that  Hagar  was  a 
slave,  to  whom  could  be  applied  the  phrase  eis SovXtiav  yewCiaay  "gen- 
dering to  bondage."  How  could  it  be  said,  "  She  is  in  bondage 
with  her  children,"  but  on  the  assumption  that  she  was  a  slave, 
and  that  the  children  of  a  slave  mother  were  born  in  bondage  ? 
This  is  the  very  point  of  the  apostle's  illustration.  So  in  later 
times  we  hear  of  the  Hebrews  having,  buying,  and  selling  slaves, 
for  a  slave  is  a  man  who  may  be  bought  and  sold.  In  Numbers 
xxxi.,  26  et  seqq.,  we  have  an  account  of  the  distribution  of  the 
spoil  taken  from  the  Midianites,  among  which  women  and  children 
are  enumerated,  and  which  were  given  in  certain  proportions  to 
the  conquerors.  This  is  a  narrative,  which  if  found  in  any  other 
book,  would  be  universally  understood  as  teaching  that  these  cap- 
tives were  slaves.  And  there  is  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be 
so  understood  here.  As  we  have  in  this  case  one  of  the  ways  in 
which  the  Hebrews  were  allowed  by  God  to  acquire  slaves,  so  we 
hear  of  their  possessing  them,  and  buying  and  selling  them.  In 
Lev.  xxii.  10,  11,  it  is  said,  "A  sojourner  of  a  priest,  or  an  hired 
servant,  shall  not  eat  of  the  holy  thing.  But  if  the  priest  buy  any 
soul  with  his  money  he  shall  eat  of  it,  and  he  that  is  born  in  his 
house,  they  shall  eat  of  it."  The  precision  of  modern  language 
could  not  distinguish  more  accurately  between  a  free  servant  and 
a  slave,  than  is  done  in  this  passage.  The  law  respecting  the 
Passover  was  of  the  same  kind.  "  There  shall  no  stranger  eat 
thereof;  but  every  mans  servant  that  is  bought  with  money,  when 
thou  hast  circumcised  him,  then  he  shall  eat  thereof,"  Ex.  xii.,  43, 
44.  Being  thus  bought,  these  slaves  were  by  the  law  of  Moses 
regarded  as  the  property  of  their  masters.  They  are  called 
money,  possession.  [{  a  man  smote  his  servant,  if  he  died  under 
his  hand,  the  master  was  to  be  punished  ;  if  he  continued  a  day  or 
two  the  owner  was  not  punished,  for  the  servant  was  his  money, 
Ex.  xxi.,  21.  The  right  of  masters  to  sell  their  slaves  is  constantly 
assumed.  It  is  implied  in  the  right  to  buy,  which  supposes  a  sale. 
It  is  implied  in  the  very  nature  of  the  relation  as  the  slave  was 
the  money,  the  possession,  the  inheritance  of  the  master.  It  is 
implied  in  the  restrictions  which  are  imposed  upon  the  right,  a 


ABOLITIONISM.  329 

man  could  not  sell  a  female  slave  whom  he  had  humbled  ;  "  thou 
shalt  not  make  merchandise  of  her  because  thou  hast  humbled  her  " 
Deut.  xxi.,  14.  Nor  could  he  sell  her  to  a  foreign  nation,  Ex. 
xxi.,  8.  If  a  master  wounded  a  slave  he  could  not  sell  him,  he 
must  let  him  go  free  without  money,  Ex.  xxi. 

The  clearest  and  most  explicit  enactments  on  this  whole  subject 
are  found  in  Lev.  xxv.,  39-46.  "  If  thy  brother  that  dwelleth  by 
thee  be  waxen  poor,  and  be  sold  unto  thee ;  thou  shalt  not  compel 
him  to  serve  as  a  bond  servant ;  hut  as  an  hired  servant,  and  as  a 
sojourner  shall  he  be  with  thee,  and  shall  serve  thee  unto  the  year 
of  jubilee ;  then  shall  he  depart  from  thee,  both  he  and  his  children 
with  him,  and  shall  return  unto  his  own  family,  and  unto  the  pos- 
session of  his  father  shall  he  return.  For  they  are  my  servants 
which  I  brought  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt ;  they  shall  not  be 
sold  as  bondmen.  Thou  shalt  not  rule  over  him  with  rigour,  but 
shalt  fear  thy  God.  Both  thy  bondmen,  and  thy  bondmaids,  which 
thou  shalt  have,  shall  he  of  the  heathen  that  are  round  about  you  ; 
of  them  shall  ye  buy  bondmen  and  bondmaids.  Moreover,  of  the 
children  of  the  strangers  that  do  sojourn  among  you,  of  them  shall 
ye  buy,  and  of  their  families  that  are  with  you,  which  they  begat 
in  your  land ;  and  they  shall  be  your  possession.  And  ye  shall 
take  them  as  an  inheritance  for  your  children  after  you,  to  inherit 
them  for  a  possession.  They  shall  be  your  bondmen  for  ever  ;  but 
over  your  brethren  the  children  of  Israel,  ye  shall  not  rule  over 
one  another  with  rigour." 

We  do  not  know  how  this  passage  can  be  rendered  plainer  than 
it  is,  nor  can  we  hope  that  any  man,  who  is  in  such  a  state  of  mind 
as  to  prevent  his  seeing  and  admitting  that  it  authorized  the  He- 
brews to  hold  slaves,  could  be  convinced  even  if  one  rose  from  the 
dead.  It  is  here  taught,  1.  That  if  a  Hebrew  through  poverty 
sold  himself,  he  should  not  be  reduced  to  the  abject  state  of  a 
slave.  2.  That  he  should  be  treated  as  a  hired  servant.  3.  And 
be  allowed  to  go  free  at  the  year  of  Jubilee.  This  is  the  precise 
condition  which  abolitionists  assign  to  the  heathen  servants  among 
the  Hebrews,  whereas  it  is  here  declared  to  be  peculiar  to  servants 
who  were  children  of  Israel ;  who  could  not  be  sold  as  bondmen, 
venditione  mancipi%  as  the  elder  Michaelis  translates  it.  Of  the 
other  class  it  is  taught,  1.  That  they  might  be  bought  for  bond- 
men. 2.  That  they  might  be  held  as  a  possession  or  property.  3. 
They  might  be  bequeathed  by  their  masters  to  the  children  as  a 
possession  ;  hereditaria  jure  possidehitis,  as  Michaelis  renders  the 
phrase  ;  or  as  De  Wette  translates  it  to  the  letter :  Ihr  moget  sie 
vererben  auf  cure  Sohne  nach  euch  als  Eigenthum.  You  may 
bequeathe  them  to  your  children  after  you  for  apossession,  4.  This 
bondage  was  perpetual.  They  shall  be  your  bondmen  for  ever. 
One  of  the  points  of  distinction  between  the  two  classes  was,  that 
the  former  could  not  be  sold  in  perpetuity — the  latter  might.  As 
the  land  of  a  Hebrew^  could  not  be  alienated,  so  his  person  could 
not  be  reduced  to  perpetual  bondage.     At  the  year  of  jubilee  he 


330  ABOLITIONISM. 

was  to  go  free,  and  his  inheritance  reverted  to  him.  In  contrast 
with  this,  Moses  allows  the  heathen  to  be  reduced  to  perpetual 
bondage.  Hebrews  shall  not  be  sold  with  the  sale  of  a  slave, 
venditione  mancipii,  v.  42  ;  the  heathen  may  be  thus  sold,  is  the 
very  point  of  contrast,  v.  46.  If  the  former  passage  forbade  • 
reducing  Israelites  to  the  condition  of  slaves,  the  latter  allowed 
the  heathen  to  be  so  reduced.  Again,  both  the  Hebrew  words 
and  the  construction  in  v.  39,  are  the  same  as  v.  46.  An  Israel- 
ite "  thou  shalt  not  compel  to  serve  as  a  bond  servant ;"  the  hea- 
then "  shall  be  your  bondmen."  What  is  forbidden  in  the  one 
case,  was  allowed  in  the  other.* 

If  then,  men,  who  were  the  property,  a  possession  of  other  men, 
who  might  be  bought  and  sold,  who  could  be  given  or  bequeathed 
as  a  possession  to  the  children  of  their  masters,  were  slaves,  then 
were  the  Hebrews  allowed  to  hold  slaves.  The  attempts  made  to 
evade  this  plain  teaching  of  the  scriptures  are  precisely  similar  to 
those  which  are  made  to  prove  that  the  Bible  condemns  as  sin- 
ful all  use  of  wine  as  a  beverage,  and  that  it  pronounces  even 
defensive  war  to  be  sinful.  It  is  impossible  to  answer  mere 
assertions.  And  the  more  extravagant  the  assertion,  the  more 
impossible  the  answer.  How  can  a  man  be  refuted  who  should 
say,  as  we  know  an  ultra  advocate  of  temperance  did  say,  that 
the  passage  which  speaks  of  John  the  Baptist  coming  neither  eat- 
ing nor  drinking,  means  that  he  drank  no  water,  but  only  milk; 
whereas  Christ  came  drinking  water;  though  he  was  called  a 
gluttonous  man  and  a  wine-bibber.  So  when  abolitionists  say  in 
reference  to  all  the  passages  above  referred  to,  that  the  bondmen 
of  the  Hebrews,  even  from  among  the  heathen,  were  voluntary 
servants,  who  themselves  received  the  purchase  money  paid  for 
them,  that  they  were  in  fact  hired  servants,  receiving  wages,  hiring 
themselves  for  a  term  of  years  instead  of  for  a  single  year,  or  for 
a  day,  or  week,  or  month,  who  could  neither  be  sold  nor  bequeathed ; 
we  know  not  how  they  are  to  be  answered,  any  more  than  if  they 
were  to  assert  they  were  all  ten  feet  high.  Certain  it  is,  the  asser- 
tion is  gratuitous.  It  is  not  only  destitute  of  support,  but  contrary 
to  the  plain  meaning  of  the  words,  and  to  the  sense  attributed  to 
them  in  all  ages.  Moses  found  the  institution  of  slavery  existing 
at  his  day,  and  acted  with  regard  to  it  as  he  did  with  regard  to 
many  other  things ;  instead  of  prohibiting  it,  he  made  laws  regu- 
lating the  power  of  the  master,  and  furthering  the  interests  of  the 
slave.     He  forbade  any  Hebrew  being  reduced  to  the  state  of 

*  We  copy  part  of  the  comment  of  Henry  as  given  in  the  Comprehensive  Com- 
mentary on  vs.  44-46.  "  They  might  purchase  bondmen  of  the  heathen  nations 
round  about  them,  or  of  those  strangers  that  sojourned  among  them  (except  of  the 
seven  nations  to  be  destroyed),  and  might  claim  a  dominion  over  them,  and  entail 
them  on  their  families  as  an  inheritance,  for  the  year  of  Jubilee  should  give  no  dis- 
charge to  them."  This  he  says  was  designed  to  intimate  "  that  none  shall  have  the 
benefit  of  the  gospel -jubilee,  but  only  Israelites  indeed,  and  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham by  faith  ;  as  for  those  who  continue  heathenish,  thev  continue  bondmen."  If 
Matthew  Henry  were  living  now  and  in  this  country,  should  we  not  see  him  threat- 
ened with  deposition  from  the  ministry  for  such  sentiments  ? 


ABOLITIONISM.  ^Mt 

perpetual  bondage ;  he  required  that  slaves  of  heathen  origin 
should  be  set  free  whenever  they  were  cruelly  treated,  and  as  a 
punishment  for  such  cruelty,  he  required  that  the  master  should 
assume  towards  them  the  responsibilities  of  a  parent,  introduce 
them  into  the  covenant  of  God  as  though  they  were  his  own  chil- 
dren, grant  them  access  to  the  means  of  religious  instruction,  by 
admitting  them  to  the  passover  and  other  commemorative  feasts, 
by  which  the  knowledge  of  God's  dealings  with  his  people  was 
principally  preserved  and  propagated ;  and  he  enjoined  that  they 
should  share  in  all  the  privileges  of  the  Sabbath  and  sabbatical 
year.  In  this  way,  rather  than  by  the  immediate  abolition  or  abso- 
lute prohibition  of  slavery,  infinite  wisdom  saw  fit,  in  that  age  and 
state  of  the  world,  to  provide  for  the  improvement  and  happiness 
of  men.  And  by  this  means  thousands  from  the  surrounding 
nations  were  rescued  from  heathenism,  introduced  into  the  church 
of  God  and  made  a  component  part  of  his  people. 

We  have  thought  it  the  less  necessary  to  go  into  detail  on  the 
argument  from  the  Old  Testament,  because  we  consider  aboli- 
tionists as  abandoning  the  whole  ground,  and  conceding  the  whole 
question,  when  they  come  to  the  New  Testament.  How  they  can 
avoid  feeling  condemned  out  of  their  own  lips,  is  more  than  we 
can  understand.  The  admitted  facts  of  the  cast  are  these,  1.  That 
at  the  time  of  the  introduction  of  Christianity,  slavery  in  its  worst 
form  prevailed  extensively  over  the  world.  The  slaves  are  esti- 
mated as  amounting  to  one-half  or  two-thirds  of  the  population  of 
the  Roman  Empire  ;  and  the  severity  with  which  they  were  treated 
was  extreme.  2.  That  neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  ever 
denounced  slaveholding  as  a  crime.  3.  That  they  never  urged 
emancipation  as  an  immediate  duty.  These  are  the  facts :  the 
inference  is  irresistible,  slaveholding  cannot  be  a  crime.  It  is 
placed  by  the  inspired  writers  upon  the  same  ground  with  despotism. 
The  possession  of  absolute  sovereignty  in  the  state,  the  exercise 
by  one  man  of  the  supreme  legislative,  judicial  and  executive  func- 
tions of  government,  is  not  in  its  own  nature  sinful.  If  such  a 
sovereign  is  wise,  just  and  benevolent,  he  may  be  a  great  bene- 
factor, and  secure  the  approbation  of  all  good  men.  Accordingly, 
the  apostles,  though  living  under  the  reign  of  Nero,  while  they 
denounce  all  injustice  and  cruelty,  whether  in  despot,  master,  or 
parent,  never  say  a  word  about  the  sin  of  despotism.  On  the 
contrary,  they  enjoined  the  duty  of  submission  to  the  exercise  of 
that  authority ;  teaching  that  human  government,  however  consti- 
tuted, was  an  ordinance  of  God  ;  that  the  king,  though  such  a  king 
as  Nero,  was  still  the  minister  of  God,  an  avenger  to  execute 
wrath,  responsible  for  the  exercise  of  power,  but  not  for  the  then 
possession  of  it.  In  like  manner,  though  masters  were  invested 
with  greater  power  over  their  slaves  than  any  master  now  pos- 
sesses, the  apostles,  instead  of  enjoining  them  to  lay  it  aside,  com- 
manded them  to  exercise  it  properly,  to  be  just  and  equal  in  all 
their  dealings,  remembering  that  they  too  had  a  master  in  heaven. 


9m 


ABOLITIONISM. 


On  the  slaves  they  enjoined  obedience,  not  only  when  the  masters 
were  good  and  gentle,  but  also  when  they  were  froward ;  holding 
up  to  them  the  example  of  the  Redeemer  himself,  who  patiently 
submitted  to  injury.  They  cautioned  those  who  had  believing 
masters,  against  despising  them  because  they  were  brethren. 
The  equality  which  existed  between  them  and  their  masters,  as 
brethren  in  Christ,  was  no  reason  why  they  should  not  render  to 
them  the  honour  and  service  due  to  them  as  their  masters  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh. 

Such  is  the  plain  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  on  this  subject, 
and  it  is  absolutely  irreconcilable  with  the  assumption  that  the 
apostles  regarded  slaveholding  as  a  heinous  crime.  It  is  here  that 
the  argument  of  the  abolitionists  breaks  down  entirely.  We  have 
often  seen  children  building  houses  with  cards  ;  after  laying  a 
broad  foundation  and  carrying  up  the  structure  with  the  greatest 
care  and  skill  to  the  proposed  height,  in  placing  the  last  card  in 
position,  the  whole  collapses  and  lies  in  ruins  at  their  feet.  Thus 
these  brethren  begin  with  Abraham,  and  by  dint  of  learning,  inge- 
nuity, and  hard  asserting,  make  out  a  tottering  case  ;  but  when 
they  come  to  the  admission  that  Christ  and  his  apostles,  though 
living  in  the  midst  -of  slavery,  never  denounced  slaveholding  as  a 
sin  and  never  eri§oined  immediate  emancipation  as  a  duty,  their 
whole  laborious  structure  is  prostrated  in  a  moment.  The  conces- 
sion of  those  facts  is  a  concession  that  they  differ  from  their  Master 
and  his  inspired  apostles. 

The  solution  which  they  give  of  the  facts  referred  to  is  alto- 
gether unsatisfactory.  They  say  in  substance,  that  the  apostles 
concealed  the  truth,  that  they  were  afraid  of  consequences,  that 
they  acted  from  policy  or  motives  of  expediency.*  Our  answer 
to  this  is :  1.  That  such  conduct  would  be  immoral.  For  men 
professing  to  be  inspired  teachers  of  truth  and  duty,  to  appear 
among  men  living  in  the  daily  commission  of  "  a  heinous  crime  in 
the  sight  of  God,"  and  never  once  tell  them  it  was  a  crime  ;  to 
allow  them  to  go  on  in  this  course  of  iniquity  to  the  ruin  of  their 
souls,  is  a  supposition  which  shocks  the  moral  sense.  Nothing  but 
the  explicit  declaration  that  slaveholding  was  a  crime,  and  imme- 
diate emancipation  a  duty,  could  satisfy  the  demands  of  conscience 
in  such  a  case.  Men  were  constantly  coming  to  the  apostles  to 
ask  what  they  must  do  to  be  saved,  what  God  would  have  them  to 
do,  and  if  they  did  not  answer  those  questions  openly  and  honestly, 
according  to  their  real  convictions,  they  were  bad  men.  Such 
conduct  in  any  other  case  would  by  all  men  be  pronounced  immo- 

•  This  is  the  ground  they  are  forced  to  take.  The  Reviewer  of  Dr.  Junkin's  pam- 
phlet says  :  "  To  have  waged  a  public  war  against  slavery,  to  have  taken  the  stand 
and  employed  the  active  efforts  now  adopted  by  abolitionists,  would  have  been,  humanly 
speaking,  to  have  drawn  upon  their  heads  immediate  and  utter  destruction,  and  that 
without  even  the  remotest  prospect  of  benefiting  the  poor  slaves."— P.  109.  "We 
need  not  expect,  therefore,  in  the  New  Testament,  a  direct  declaration  of  the  fact 
that  man  cannot  hold  property  in  man;  nor  that  immediate  emancipation  is  a  Chris- 
tian duty."— P.  110. 


ABOLITIONISM.  333 

ral.  Suppose  our  missionaries  among  the  heathen,  in  teaching  the 
gospel,  should,  from  motives  of  policy,  abstain  from  telling  them 
the  truth,  should  fail  intentionally  to  inform  them  that  idolatry, 
adultery,  child-murder,  or  any  like  crime,  was  a  grievous  sin  in 
the  sight  of  God,  would  not  all  the  world  pronounce  them  unfaith- 
ful ?  Do  not  abolitionists  condemn  southern  ministers  for  not 
explicitly  stating  that  slaveholding  is  a  crime,  and  immediate 
emancipation  a  duty  ?  Would  they  not  view  with  abhorrence  the 
minister  who  really  coincided  with  them  in  his  views,  and  yet, 
through  fear  of  the  consequences,  held  his  peace,  and  allowed  his 
hearers  to  sin  on  in  security  ?  Would  not,  on  the  contrary,  the 
world  ring  with  their  shouts  in  praise  of  the  man  who  in  fidelity 
to  God,  and  in  love  to  man,  should  openly  preach  the  truth  on  these 
points  to  a  congregation  of  slaveholders,  even  though  it  brought 
sudden  destruction  on  his  own  head  ?  We  fear,  however,  we  are 
only  obscuring  the  clearness  of  a  self-evident  truth  by  multiplying 
illustrations.  The  conduct  of  the  apostles  is  absolutely  irrecon- 
cilable with  moral  honesty,  if  they  believed  slaveholding  to  be  a 
heinous  crime  in  the  sight  of  God.  They  were  either  bad  men,  or 
they  were  not  abolitionists,  in  the  American  sense  of  that  word. 
2.  But  again,  the  course  ascribed  to  the  apostles,  in  reference  to 
slavery,  is  not  only  base  in  itself,  but  it  is  contrary  to  their  conduct 
in  all  analogous  cases.  Slaveholding  is  the  only  sin  familiar  to 
those  to  whom  they  preached,  and  about  which  they  wrote,  that 
they  failed  to  denounce.  Idolatry  was  a  crime  which  was  more 
prevalent  than  slaveholding  ;  more  implicated  in  all  the  institutions 
of  life,  in  support  of  which  stronger  passions  were  engaged,  and 
in  attacking  which  they  could  not  look  for  the  support  of  one-half 
or  two-thirds  of  the  community.  Yet  idolatry  they  everywhere, 
proclaimed  to  be  a  crime  inconsistent  with  Christianity,  and  a  bar 
to  salvation.  The  consequence  was  the  apostles  were  persecuted 
even  to  death.  It  is  not  true  that  they  kept  back  the  truth  for  fear 
of  suffering.  They  called  God  to  witness  that  they  declared  the 
whole  counsel  of  God,  and  were  clear  of  every  man's  blood.  It  is  said 
that  the  cases  of  idolatry  and  slavery  are  not  parallel,  because  it  was 
more  dangeroas  to  denounce  the  latter  than  the  former.  Admitting 
the  fact,  is  the  degree  of  danger  attending  the  discharge  of  a 
duty  the  measure  of  its  obligation  ?  Must  a  religious  teacher,  in 
explaining  the  way  of  salvation,  keep  back  the  truth — one  of 
the  most  effectual  methods  of  teaching  falsehood — because  he 
may  incur  danger  by  inculcating  it  ?  We  do  not,  however,  be- 
lieve the  allegation.  We  believe  that  the  apostles  might  have  taught 
that  slaveholding  is  a  sin,  with  far  less  danger  than  that  which 
they  incurred  by  teaching  that  what  the  heathen  sacrificed  they 
sacrificed  to  devils.  We  need  not  conceive  of  their  adopting 
the  system  of  agitation,  and  the  whole  "  moral  machinery'*  of 
modern  times.  They  adopted  no  such  course  with  regard  to 
idolatry.  But  they  might  doubtless  with  comparative  safety  have 
told  slaveholders  that  it  was  their  duty  to  emancipate  their  slaves. 


334  ABOLITIONISM. 

They  could  as  well  have  enjoined  them  to  set  their  servants  free, 
as  to  command  them  to  render  to  them  what  is  just  and  equal. 
Many  men,  without  any  great  exhibition  of  courage,  have  taught 
and  do  still  teach  the  moral  evil  of  slaveholding  in  the  midst  of 
slaveholders.  And  even  now,  any  man  who,  in  a  meek,  sincere, 
and  benevolent  spirit,  should  say  to  southern  planters  that  the 
relation  they  sustain  to  their  slaves  is  contrary  to  the  will  of  God, 
and  incompatible  with  their  own  salvation,  would  meet  with  no 
greater  disturbance  than  the  Quakers  have  experienced  in  making 
their  annual  testimony  against  slavery. 

The  course  ascribed  to  the  apostles  is  not  only  insonsistent  with 
fidelity  and  contrary  to  their  uniform  practice,  but  it  is  moreover 
opposed  to  the  conduct  of  the  messengers  of  God  in  all  ages.  The 
ancient  prophets  never  failed  to  reprove  the  people  for  their  sins, 
and  to  exhort  them  to  repentance,  no  matter  how  strong  the 
attachment  of  their  hearers  to  their  iniquity,  or  how  powerful 
the  interests  leagued  in  its  support.  Elijah  did  not  fail  to 
denounce  the  worship  of  Baal,  though  Ahab  and  Jezebel  were 
determined  to  kill  the  prophets  of  God  ;  nor  did  John  the  Baptist 
fail  to  tell  Herod  that  it  was  not  lawful  for  him  to  have  his  bro- 
ther's wife. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  serious  aspects  of  this  whole  discussion. 
The  testimony  of  scripture  is  so  clearly  against  the  fundamental 
principle  of  modern  abolitionism,  that  the  most  violent  processes 
of  interpretation  must  be  resorted  to,  to  get  rid  of  its  authority  ;  and 
the  example  of  the  apostles  is  so  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
party,  that  to  evade  its  force  they  are  constrained  to  ascribe  to  the 
messengers  of  Christ  principles  of  conduct  which  the  moral  sense 
instinctively  condemns.  This  course  cannot  be  pursued  without 
weakening  the  authority  of  the  word  of  God.  When  any  set  of 
men  assume  that  a  doctrine,  whether  it  be  the  Trinity,  personal 
election,  or  future  punishment,  cannot  be  true,  and  go  to  the  scrip- 
tures with  the  determination  to  silence  their  testimony,  or  to 
make  them  speak  in  accordance  with  their  preconceived  opinions, 
they  wrong  their  own  souls,  and  put  themselves  above  the  word 
of  God.  Or  if  they  assume  on  general  grounds  that  the  use  of 
wine,  defensive  war,  the  holding  of  slaves,  is  in  itself  a  sin,  and 
place  the  scriptures  on  the  rack  of  criticism,  to  make  them  teach 
the  same  doctrine,  it  is  bad  for  them,  bad  for  the  church,  and 
bad  for  the  country.  It  of  course  makes  a  great  difference 
whether  this  conflict  with  the  Bible  is  associated  with  the  benevo- 
lent or  with  the  malignant  feelings  of  our  nature  ;  but  it  is  well  for 
us  to  remember  that  we  cannot  be  more  benevolent  than  God,  and 
that  it  is  vain  for  us  to  condemn  what  his  word  allows.  And  if  we 
at  any  time  feel  that  the  scriptures  trouble  us  ;  if  we  wish  they 
did  not  say  exactly  what  they  do  say,  jf  we  should  be  glad  to 
alter  them  to  bring  them  nearer  to  our  mind,  we  may  be  certain 
that  the  fault  is  in  ourselves.  The  more  perfectly  we  can  sympa- 
thize with  the  word  as  it  is  ;  the  more  entirely  our  understanding. 


ABOLITIONISM.  335 

heart,  and  conscience,  accord  with  its  statements,  the  more  health- 
ful is  the  state  of  our  minds.  And  on  the  contrary,  the  more  we 
rise  in  conflict  with  its  obvious  import,  the  more  we  feel  constrained 
to  resort  to  evasions  and  unnatural  interpretations  to  escape  from 
its  authority,  the  more  certainly  are  we  in  the  wrong.  And  when 
the  pride  of  our  nature  rises  so  high  as  to  lead  us  to  declare  that  if 
the  Bible  really  teaches  this  or  that,  which  to  all  appearance  it 
does  teach,  we  renounce  it,  then  we  become  judges  and  not  doers 
of  the  law. 

We  have  repeatedly  admitted,  though  we  believe  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  abolitionism  to  be  false  and  its  spirit  fanatical, 
leading  to  a  censoriousness,  and  evil  speaking  of  Christian  brethren, 
exceedingly  offensive  to  God,  yet  that  many  good  men  are  to  be 
found  in  their  ranks.  It  may  therefore  be  proper  to  ask.  How  it 
is  that  on  a  question  of  morals,  good  men  should  be  so  divided 
in  their  judgments,  one  aflirming,  another  denying  that  slaveholding 
is  a  crime  ?  We  think  we  have  already  intimated  the  true  solution 
of  this  question.  They  have  in  a  great  measure  different  objects 
before  their  minds.  What  the  abolitionists,  for  the  most  part,  really 
condemn,  the  true  objects  of  their  moral  disapprobation,  is  not  slave- 
holding,  but  the  slave-laws  ;  and  what  the  other  party  vindicate  as 
not  necessarily  inconsistent  with  the  will  of  God,  is  slaveholding, 
a»d  not  the  slave-laws  of  this  or  any  other  country.  It  is  the 
want  of  discrimination  between  these  entirely  distinct  things, 
Slaveholding  and  the  Slave-laws,  we  firmly  believe  is  the  cause 
of  a  great  part  of  the  difference  of  sentiment  which  exists  on  this 
subject.  We  have  already  adverted  to  one  source  of  this  confu- 
sion when  speaking  of  the  nature  of  property.  The  abolitionists 
constantly  assume  that  the  incidents  of  the  right  of  property  are 
the  same  whatever  may  be  the  nature  of  its  object.  Hence  they 
infer  that  if  one  man  may  justly  hold  another  man  as  property,  he 
may  justly  treat  him  as  he  may  treat  any  other  article  of  property  ; 
if  the  validity  of  the  title  be  acknowledged,  it  follows  that  the 
owner  may  disregard  the  nature  of  his  slave,  treat  him  as  if  he 
were  not  a  husband,  or  not  a  parent ;  as  though  he  had  no  social 
affections ;  or  was  not  a  rational  being,  and  had  no  soul  to  be 
saved  or  lost.  This  is  what  they  mean  to  condemn,  and  this  every 
good  man  in  the  world  would  condemn ;  and  if  this  was  a  correct 
view  of  what  is  meant  by  the  right  of  property  in  man,  there  could 
be  no  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  whether  slaveholding  were  a 
heinous  crime.  Again,  they  constantly  confound  what  a  man  has 
a  right  to  do  in  virtue  of  his  relation  of  master,  with  what  the  laws 
of  the  land  give  him  the  liberty  to  do,  or  even  enjoin  upon  him. 
Thus  the  Reviewer  above  quoted,  argues  that  if  the  apostles  recog- 
nised slaveholding  under  the  Roman  laws  as  consistent  with  a 
Christian  character,  they  must  have  recognised  as  consistent  with 
that  charater,  all  the  oppressions,  cruelty,  and  even  murder,  which 
those  laws  sanctioned  or  permitted.  "  The  Roman  law,"  he  says, 
"  allowed  masters  to  put  their  slaves  to  death  ;  to  extort  testimony: 


336  ABOLITIONISM. 

on  the  rack ;  to  punish  them  with  dreadful  tortures ;  to  turn  out 
the  old  slaves  to  die  on  a  dunghill,  &c.  Might  the  Christian  master 
claim  and  exercise  all  these  legal  rights  ?  The  Roman  law  said, 
Inter  servos  etliheros  matrimonium  contrahi  nowpotest,  contubernium 
potest.  A  freeman  may  live  with  a  slave,  but  not  marry  her. 
Was  this  legal  fornication  tolerated  in  the  church?"  He  might 
have  gone  further,  and  said  that  the  Roman  law  recognised  no 
marriage  between  slaves,  and  then  ask,  whether  the  apostles  recog- 
nised this  prohibition  of  matrimony  ?  If  we  understand  this  argu- 
ment, it  is,  that  if  the  apostles  recognised  the  right  of  a  Christian 
under  the  Roman  laws  to  hold  slaves,  they  thereby  recognised  his 
right  to  expose  his  slaves  to  die  of  cold  and  hunger,  to  torture  them 
at  pleasure,  to  forbid  them  to  marry,  or  to  regard  their  union  as 
mere  temporary  concubinage.  If  this  is  a  valid  mode  of  reasoning, 
then  the  Bible,  in  recognising  the  right  of  kings  to  reign,  recog- 
nised their  right  to  throw  good  men  to  lions,  or  into  a  furnace,  to 
persecute  them  for  worshipping  the  true  God,  and  to  do  all  the 
abominable  things  human  laws  have  ever  permitted  kings  to  do. 
Then,  too,  if  the  Bible  recognises  the  parental  relation,  it  recog- 
nises the  right  of  the  parent  to  sell  his  daughters  as  concubines,  to 
put  his  children  to  death,  or  to  do  whatever  the  laws  of  Moham- 
medans or  Pagans  may  authorize  a  parent's  doing.  One  would 
think  that  the  distinction  between  the  lawfulness  of  a  given  reii- 
tion,  as  between  a  king  and  his  subjects,  a  parent  and  his  children, 
a  master  and  his  slaves,  and  the  laws  which  at  any  particular  time 
or  place  may  be  enacted  in  reference  to  that  relation,  is  sufficiently 
clear,  to  prevent  the  two  things  from  being  confounded.  Yet  this 
is  a  distinction  that  abolitionists  will  not  make.  When  they  speak 
of  slaveholding  as  a  sin,  they  mean  that  it  is  a  sin  to  do  what  the 
slave-laws  of  the  south  permit  to  be  done  ;  to  separate  parents  and 
children,  or  husbands  and  wives  ;  to  treat  slaves  with  injustice  and 
cruelty  ;  to  prevent  their  learning  to  read  the  word  of  God,  or 
attending  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  And  when  any  man  asserts 
that  slaveholding  is  not  a  crime,  they  consider  him  as  saying  that 
it  is  not  a  sin  thus  to  trample  on  the  dearest  rights  of  our  fellow 
men.  The  very  title  of  the  book  to  which  we  have  so  often  refer- 
red, is,  "  A  Review  of  Dr.  Junkin's  Synodical  Speech  in  defence  of 
American  Slavery"  Dr.  Junkin's  speech,  however,  is  simply  an 
argument  to  prove  that  slaveholding  is  not  a  crime,  and  therefore 
that  "  believing  masters  ought  not  to  be  excommunicated  from  the 
church  of  God."  This  is  called  a  defence  of  American  Slavery ! 
i.  e.  of  the  whole  system  of  slave-laws  now  in  force  in  this  country! 
There  is  no  help  for  men  who  will  act  thus.  May  not  a  man  in 
England  maintain  that  landholding  is  no  sin,  without  defending  all 
the  English  laws  of  entail  and  primogeniture,  which  relate  to 
lands  ?  May  he  not  teach  that  it  is  right  to  hold  property,  with- 
out thereby  teaching  that  all  the  laws  relating  to  property,  in  any 
given  country,  are  wise  and  just?  Then  why  may  he'not  say, 
that  slaveholding  is  no  crime,  and  yet  not  defend  the  slave-laws 


1 


ABOLITIONISM.  337 

either  of  Rome  or  America  ?  This  distinction,  which  is  so  plain 
as  to  be  glaring,  it  is  of  great  importance  should  be  borne  in 
mind  both  in  the  North  and  South.  In  the  North,  to  prevent  the 
sin  and  folly  of  condemning  all  slaveholders  as  criminals,  when  the 
slave  laws  are  the  real  objects  meant  to  be  condemned  ;  and  in 
the  South,  to  prevent  those  who  maintain  that  slaveholding  is  no 
sin,  from  thinking  it  necessary  to  defend,  and  from  expecting  others 
to  defend  the  existing  laws  in  relation  to  that  subject. 

We  utterly  repudiate  the  charge  that  we  are  the  advocates  of 
the  slave-laws  of  the  South,  because  we  hold  that  slaveholding  is 
not  in  itself  a  crime.  We  deny  that  such  a  charge  is  sustained  by 
anything  we  have  said ;  we  deny  that  southern  Christians  even 
defend  the  laws  which  are  now  in  force  with  regard  to  the  slaves. 
We  know,  for  example,  that  the  law  which  forbids  slaves  being 
taught  to  read,  is  in  a  multitude  of  cases  openly  disregarded.^ 
Within  ten  days  a  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  told  us  that 
every  slave  that  he  had  could  both  read  and  write,  and  that  he 
never  gave  himself  the  least  concern  about  the  law  which  forbids 
the  instruction  of  the  blacks.  To  show  how  unreasonable  is  the 
clamour  of  abolitionists  against  those  who  oppose  their  distinctive 
doctrine,  we  will  again  briefly  state  what  we  conceive  to  be  the 
correct  view  of  the  subject. 

By  slaveholding  we  understand  one  man*s  having  the  right  of 
property  in  another  man ;  and  by  the  right  of  property  we  under- 
stand the  right  of  having  and  using  a  thing  according  to  its  nature  ; 
and  consequently  the  right  of  property  in  a  man  can  be  nothing 
more  than  the  right  to  use  him  as  a  man.  And  as  a  man  is  not 
only  a  sentient  creature,  but  a  social,  rational,  moral  and  immortal 
being,  it  is  not  an  incident  of  the  right  of  property  in  him,  that  his 
wants  as  a  social  and  rational  being  can  be  justly  disregarded,  any 
more  than  it  is  an  incident  of  right  of  property  in  a  horse,  that  the 
wants  of  the  horse  as  a  living  animal  can  be  justly  neglected.  On 
the  contrary,  as  the  possession  of  rights  implies  corresponding 
duties,  the  possession  of  property  in  a  man  imposes  the  responsi- 
bility of  providing  for  his  wants  as  a  man.  And  as  the  wants  of  a 
man  relate  to  the  soul  as  well  as  to  the  body,  the  responsibility  not 
only  rests  upon  the  owner,  but  arises  out  of  the  very  nature  of  his 
relation  to  his  slaves  as  their  owner,  to  provide  not  merely  for 
their  comfortable  support,  but  also  for  their  education,  for  the 
secure  exercise  of  their  social  affections  as  husbands  and  fathers  ; 
and  for  their  moral  and  religious  instruction.  These  are  as  plainly 
the  incidents  of  the  right  of  property  in  man,  as  the  duty  of  sup- 
port, education,  and  moral  and  religious  culture,  is  an  incident  of  a 
parent's  relation  to  his  children.  So  far,  therefore,  from  maintain- 
ing that  a  master  has  a  right  in  virtue  of  his  ownership  to  prevent 
his  slaves  marrying,  or  to  separate  them  when  married,  or  to  keep 
them  in  ignorance,  or  to  debar  them  from  the  means  of  grace,  we 
say  that  it  of  necessity  flows  from  his  right  of  property  in  them, 
that  he  has  no  right  to  do  any  of  these  things,  but  is  bound  to  do 
22 


338  ABOLITIONISM. 

the  direct  reverse.  It  is  here  as  in  despotic  governments.  So  far 
from  the  possession  by  one  man  of  absolute  power  in  the  state, 
giving  him  the  right  to  interfere  v^'ith  the  religious  convictions  of 
his  people,  to  keep  them  in  ignorance,  to  separate  the  married,  to 
take  children  from  their  parents,  or  in  any  way  to  hinder  the  social, 
intellectual,  and  religious  improvement  of  those  subject  to  his 
power,  the  very  possession  of  that  power  imposes  the  strongest 
oMigation  to  do  all  he  can  for  their  happiness  and  improvement. 

Again,  as  the  possession  of  power  over  our  fellow-men  neces- 
sarily involves  corresponding  duties  towards  them,  so  the  exercise 
of  that  power  is  to  be  regulated  by  the  law  of  God.  A  king,  is 
bound  to  exercise  his  power  according  to  the  rules  of  justice  and 
mercy  ;  a  parent  must  use  his  authority  for  edification  and  not  for 
destruction  ;  and  a  master's  power  over  the  slave  is  in  like  man- 
ner subject  to  the  rules  of  God's  word.  And  as  it  is  one  of  the 
rules  there  laid  down,  that  labour  should  be  rewarded,  it  is  no  fair 
inference  from  the  admission  of  the  right  of  possession  in  the  mas- 
ter, that  he  may  justly  withhold  a  reasonable  compensation  for  the 
labour  of  his  slaves.  And  in  point  of  fact,  we  believe  it  to  be  true, 
that  the  slaves  of  the  south,  as  a  general  rule,  are  far  better  com- 
pensated than  the  great  body  of  operatives  in  Europe.  We 
believe  also  that  taking  them  as  a  class,  their  intellectual,  moral, 
and  religious  condition  is  better.  It  is  not  well,  however,  to  recrimi- 
nate. Americans  doubtless  have  sinned  and  are  now  sinning 
greatly,  in  not  discharging  the  duties  which  flow  from  their  rela- 
tion to  the  coloured  people  of  this  country  as  their  masters  ;  and 
this  sin  is  not  the  less,  because  England  has  sinned  and  is  still 
sinning  in  a  higher  measure,  in  her  conduct  towards  her  labour- 
ing population.  The  degradation,  social  and  moral,  into  which 
large  masses  of  the  people  have  there  been  allowed  to  sink, 
we  cannot  but  regard  as  the  natural  consequence  of  unequal 
laws  ;  of  laws  which  favour  the  accumulation  of  property  in 
the  hands  of  a  few,  and  which  tend  to  confine  the  benefits  of 
education  and  religious  privileges  to  the  upper  and  middle  classes. 
The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  stated  in  the  House  of  Lords,  that 
there  were  three  millions  of  people  in  England  and  Wales  without 
pastoral  supervision,  and  that  church  accommodation  was  provided 
for  one  in  eight  of  the  population,  in  some  parts  of  the  country, 
and  for  one  in  thirty  in  other  parts.  The  Marquis  of  Lans- 
downe,  on  another  occasion,  stated  that,  with  the  exception  of 
Spain  and  Russia,  England  was  in  education  below  any  European 
nation,  only  one  in  twelve  of  the  population  being  in  school.  A 
public  report  recently  made  to  parliament,  states  that  there  are 
nearly  three  millions  and  a  half  of  the  people  of  Ireland  living  in 
mud  hovels,  having  one  room  each,  and  without  chimney  or  win- 
dows. While  the  mass  of  the  population  is  sinking  to  such  degra- 
dation, property  is  accumulating  with  fearful  rapidity  in  the  hands 
of  a  constantly  decreasing  number.  In  1770  the  lands  of  Eng- 
land belonged  to  250,000  families;  in  1815,  they  belonged  to 


ABOLITIONISM.  339 

32,000,  and  since  then  the  process  has  been  going  on  as  rapidly  as 
ever.*  In  1838  it  appeared  from  the  probate  of  wills  that  the 
personal  property  of  twenty-four  bishops,  who  had  died  within 
twenty  years,  averaged  about  $300,000  each.  This  is  exclusive 
of  their  real  estates.  If  the  eye  had  the  power  of  retroversion, 
we  should  certainly  be  less  censorious.  The  laws  of  England  by 
which  such  inequality  has  been  produced  in  the  distribution  of 
wealth,  and  such  ignorance  and  misery  entailed  on  the  lower 
classes,  are  to  Americans  as  much  the  objects  of  moral  disappro- 
bation, as  anything  in  our  institutions  can  be  to  the  good  people  of 
England.  And  yet  we  hear  of  no  public  meetings  to  recommend 
discontinuing  the  use  of  the  products  of  English  labour,  analogous 
to  those  which  in  Great  Britain  recommend,  under  the  patronage 
of  that  very  eccentric  person  Dr.  Burns,  the  non-importation  of 
American  cotton.  This  however  is  a  digression  which  we  should 
be  willing  to  strike  out,  but  are  also  willing  to  let  stand.  We  do 
not  approve  of  this  mutual  condemnation,  and  only  adduce  the 
foregoing  facts  to  show  how  unbecoming  it  appears  in  the  eyes  of 
Americans,  for  men  surrounded  by  such  crying  evils  at  home,  to 
exhaust  their  benevolence  on  distant  objects. 

As,  then,  the  right  of  property  in  a  man,  while  it  invests  the 
owner  with  power  to  command  his  services,  does  not  exempt  him 
from  the  obligation  to  exercise  that  power  according  to  the  direc- 
tions of  God's  word,  the  master  therefore  is  bound  by  the  principle 
that  the  labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire.  And  the  right  to  accumu- 
late property  necessarily  follows  from  the  right  to  compensation, 
for  a  man's  hire  is  his  own,  and  if  it  exceeds  the  necessary  means 
of  support,  it  is  his  own  still.  This  right  is  generally  recognised. 
How  else  could  slaves  purchase  their  own  liberty,  as  they  are 
allowed  to  do  under  Spanish  laws,  and  as  they  so  often  in  fact  do 
in  this  country  ? 

It  follows  necessarily,  from  what  has  been  said,  that  all  those 
laws  which  are  designed  to  restrict  the  master  in  the  discharge  of 
the  duties  which  flow  from  his  relation  to  his  slaves ;  which  for- 
bid his  teaching  them  to  read,  or  which  prohibit  marriage  amonff 
them,  or  which  allow  of  the  separation  of  those  who  are  married, 
or  which  render  insecure  the  possession  of  their  earnings,  or  are 
otherwise  in  conflict  with  the  word  of  God,  are  wicked  laws ; 
laws  which  do  not  find  their  justification  in  the  admission  of  the 
right  of  ownership  in  the  master,  but  are  in  direct  contravention 
of  the  obligations  which  necessarily  flow  from  that  right.  If  the 
laws  of  the  land  forbade  parents  to  instruct  their  children,  or  per- 
mitted them  to  sell  them  to  the  Turks,  there  would  be  a  general 
outcry  against  the  atrocity  of  such  laws ;  but  no  man  would  be 
so  absurd  as  to  infer  that  having  children  was  a  great  sin.  Parents 
who  complied  with  such  laws  would  be  great  sinners,  but  not 
parents  who  did  their  duty  to  their  children.    In  all  other  cases, 

*  Edinburgh  Witness,  Feb.  3,  1844.  •-   *'* 


340  ABOLITIONISM. 

men  distinguish  between  the  relation,  whether  of  kings  and  sub- 
jects, of  lords  and  tenants,  of  parents  and  children,  and  the  laws, 
just  oi»  unjust,  which  may  be  made  respecting  those  relations.  If 
they  would  make  the  same  distinction  between  slaveholding  and 
the  slave-laws,  they  would  see  that  the  condemnation  of  the  latter 
does  not  necessarily  involve  the  condemnation  of  the  former  as 
itself  a  crime. 

The  principles  above  stated  we  believe  to  be  scriptural,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  enlightened  moral  sense  of  men.  We  believe 
them  also  to  be  eminently  conducive  to  the  welfare  of  the  slaves. 
The  principles  and  conduct,  on  the  other  hand,  of  our  abolitionists, 
we  believe  to  be  unchristian  and  in  the  highest  degree  injurious. 
If  their  distinctive  doctrine  is  erroneous,  then  denouncing  slavehold- 
ers as  such,  excluding  them  from  the  church,  insisting  on  imme- 
diate emancipation  as  in  all  cases  a  duty,  are  all  seen  and  felt  to 
be  unreasonable  ;  and  the  spirit  with  which  this  course  is  pur- 
sued, to  be  unchristian.  The  consequence  is,  that  opposition  and 
alienation  are  produced  between  those  who  ought  to  be  united ; 
slaveholders,  who  do  not  belong  to  the  church,  are  exasperated, 
and  become  more  severe  in  the  treatment  of  their  slaves,  more 
intolerant  of  all  means  for  their  improvement,  and  the  hands  of 
God's  people  living  among  them  are  effectually  tied.  As  the  cause 
of  temperance  was  disparaged,  weakened,  and  in  some  places 
ruined,  by  making  all  use  of  intoxicating  drinks  sinful ;  so  the 
cause  of  the  slave  has  been  injured  beyond  estimate,  by  the  doc- 
trine that  slaveholding  is  itself  a  crime,  and  by  the  spirit  and 
measures  to  which  that  doctrine  has  given  rise. 

Any  candid  man  can  see,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  scriptural 
doctrine  is  adapted  to  promote  the  best  interests  of  the  slaves. 
That  doctrine  is  that  slaveholding  is  not  necessarily  sinful,  but  like 
all  similar  relations  is  right  or  wrong  according  to  circumstances, 
and  when  it  exists  gives  rise  to  the  obligation  of  providing  for  all 
the  temporal  and  spiritual  wants  of  the  slaves.  If  a  man  owns 
another,  he  is  for  that  very  reason  bound  to  feed  and  clothe  him, 
to  provide  for  him  in  sickness  and  old  age,  to  educate  him,  and  let 
the  light  of  truth  and  saving  knowledge  in  upon  his  mind,  to  watch 
over  his  rights,  to  exercise  all  the  power  which  his  ownership 
gives  him  in  accordance  with  those  rules  of  mercy  and  righteous- 
ness, which  are  laid  down  in  the  word  of  God.  It  is  also  evident 
that  acting  in  accordance  with  these  principles  would  soon  so  im- 
prove the  condition  of  the  slaves,  would  make  them  intelligent, 
moral  and  religious,  and  thus  work  out  to  the  benefit  of  alfcon- 
cerned,  and  the  removal  of  the  institution.  For  slavery,  like  des- 
potism, supposes  the  actual  inferiority,  and  consequent  dependence 
of  those  held  in  subjection.  Neither  can  be  permanent.  Both 
may  be  prolonged  by  keeping  the  subject  class  degraded,  that  is, 
by  committing  sin  on  a  large  scale,  which  is  only  to  treasure  up 
wrath  for  the  day  of  wrath.  It  is  only  the  antagonist  fanaticism 
of  a  fragment  of  the  south,  which  maintains  the   doctrine   that 


f 


ABOLITIONISM.  341 

slavery  is  in  itself  a  good  thing,  and  ought  to  be  perpetuated.  It 
cannot  by  possibility  be  perpetuated.  The  only  question  is,  how 
is  it  to  end  ?  All  that  we  are  concerned  with,  is  present  duty ; 
and  that  duty,  inferred  from  the  nature  of  the  relation,  and  declared 
in  the  word  of  God,  is  to  instruct,  to  civilize,  to  evangelize  the 
slaves,  to  make  them  as  far  as  we  can,  intelligent,  moral  and  reli- 
gious ;  good  husbands,  good  fathers,  as  well  as  good  servants. 
The  consequence  of  such  conduct  must  be  peace,  a  good  con- 
science, and  the  blessing  of  God. 

If  the  views  presented  in  this  paper  are  correct,  it  is  easy  to  see 
how  this  whole  subject  ought  to  be  treated  in  our  church  courts. 
In  the  first  place  it  is  plain,  that  for  such  courts,  under  the  dicta- 
tion of  abolitionists,  to  pronounce  slaveholding  a  crime,  and  to 
enjoin  the  exclusion  of  all  slaveholders  from  the  church,  would  be 
foolish  and  wicked.  It  would  be  to  trample  on  the  authority  of 
the  word  of  God ;  to  shock  the  moral  sense  of  the  great  body  of 
intelligent  and  pious  people  on  the  face  of  the  earth ;  it  would 
rend  the  church,  send  abroad  a  spirit  of  malice  and  discord,  and 
would  cut  off  the  slaves  themselves  from  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant means  appointed  by  God  for  their  improvement  and  emanci- 
pation ;  the  instructions  and  kind  treatment  of  believing  masters. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  plain  that  the  church  has  no  responsi- 
bility and  no  right  to  interfere,  with  respect  to  the  slave  laws  of 
the  South.  Those  laws  are  doubtless  in  many  cases  unjust  and 
cruel,  enjoining  what  God  forbids,  and  forbidding  what  God 
enjoins.  The  existence  of  those  laws  supposes  criminality  some- 
where ;  but  the  responsibility  rests  on  those  who  made,  and  have 
the  power  to  repeal  them.  It  does  not  rest  on  the  church.  Chris- 
tians who  are  members  of  communities  in  which  such  laws  are  in 
force,  have  their  share  of  responsibility  with  regard  to  them,  as 
citizens.  But  it  is  no  part  of  the  vocation  of  the  church,  as  such, 
to  interfere  with  civil  laws.  The  apostles  did  not  call  a  synod  at 
Jerusalem,  to  denounce  the  Roman  laws,  but  they  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  a  spiritual  society,  and  let  the  world  make  its  own  laws. 
We  would  not  brook  the  legislatures  of  our  States  passing  denun- 
ciatory resolutions  against  our  rules  of  church  discipline  ;  and  we 
should  not  call  upon  the  church  to  meddle  with  the  laws  of  the 
land.  As  citizens  we  have  the  right  and  duty  to  demand  just  and 
equal  laws  ;  but  as  a  church,  we  have  other  and  higher  duties. 

In  the  third  place,  it  is  evident  that  the  church  has  an  impor- 
tant duty  to  perform  in  relation  to  this  subject.  At  the  North,  as 
elsewhere,  she  is  bound  to  instruct  parents  in  their  duties  to  their 
children,  and  to  exercise  her  oversight  and  discipline  when  those 
duties  are  grossly  violated  or  neglected.  She  has  the  same  duty 
to  perform  with  regard  to  slaveholders.  As  she  would  be  called 
upon  to  censure  a  parent,  who  was  unjust  or  cruel  to  his  children, 
so  is  she  called  upon  to  censure  her  slaveholding  members,  should 
they  be  unjust  or  cruel  to  their  slaves.  The  church  is  a  society 
constituted  by  God,  to  be  governed  by  certain  rules,  and  invested 


342  ABOLITIONISM. 

with  power  to  enforce,  by  spiritual  means,  the  observance  of  those 
rules  upon  its  members.  Of  course  those  who  do  not  comply  with 
the  rules  laid  down  in  the  word  of  God,  as  to  their  conduct,  either 
as  men,  or  parents,  or  masters,  are  justly  exposed  to  the  censure 
of  the  church,  and  the  church  is  bound  to  inflict  such  censure.  As 
to  this  point,  we  presume  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion.  And 
if  we  could  agree  to  act  on  these  principles  ;  that  is,  abstain  from 
denouncing  as  a  crime  what  God  has  not  so  pronounced  ;  withhold 
our  hands  from  the  laws  of  the  land,  for  which,  as  a  church,  we 
have  no  responsibility ;  and  confine  ourselves  to  teaching  all 
classes  of  our  members  their  duties,  whether  as  parents,  masters, 
or  slaves,  and  enforcing  the  discharge  of  those  duties  by  the  power 
which  God  hath  given  to  his  church  for  edification  and  not  for 
destruction,  we  should  commend  ourselves  to  every  man's  con- 
science in  the  sight  of  God. 


ESSAY    XII. 


CAPITAL   PUNISHMENT* 


The  subject  of  criminal  jurisprudence  has  of  late  years  attracted 
much  attention,  and  the  effect  has  been  a  gradual  melioration  of 
the  penal  codes  of  most  civilized  nations.  Were  it  our  task  to 
unfold  the  causes  which  have  conspired  to  produce  this  favourable 
change,  vv^e  should  certainly  name  as  the  very  last  and  least  among 
them  all,  that  which  Mr.  Rantoul,  the  author  of  the  Massachusetts 
Report,  places  first,  the  influence  of  Jeremy  Bentham.  So  long 
as  we  believe  that  men  are  possessed  of  a  moral  nature,  that  in  its 
workings  makes  them  acquainted  with  pleasures  and  pains  of  a 
higher  order  than  the  gratifications  of  the  palate  or  the  pinchings 
of  cold  or  hunger,  we  never  can  be  persuaded  that  Benthamism  can 
be  the  means  of  any  extensive  or  enduring  benefit  to  mankind. 
It  would  be  such  a  miracle  as  might  almost  compel  us  into  blank 
scepticism,  if  a  philosophy  of  the  lowest  and  shallowest  order,  that 
contemplates  man  only  as  the  first  of  animals,  and  the  universe 
only  as  the  largest  and  best  of  machines,  should  supply  such 
truths,  motives,  and  means,  as  would  suffice  for  the  substantial 
improvement  and  elevation  of  the  human  race.  Whenever  we 
are  satisfied  that  this  has  actually  occurred,  we  shall  deem  it  a  fact 
sufficiently  startling  to  lead  us  to  examine  anew  the  nature  of 
man,  and  the  character  of  the  truths  by  which  he  is  to  live.  In 
the  meantime  we  shall  remain  in  the  belief,  that  any  wise  and 
beneficent  provision  for  the  interests  of  men  must  be  derived  from 
some  higher  source  than  a  philosophy  that  is  adequate,  in  its  legiti- 
mate scope,  only  to  the  care  of  cattle. 

Our  object,  however,  is  not  now  to  trace  the  true  causes  of  the 
reformation  which  criminal  jurisprudence  has  undergone,  but 
simply  to  mark  the  fact.  This  reformation  has  been  more 
extensive  and  striking  in  England  than  in  any  other  country.  The 
criminal  code  of  England,  as  it  stood  thirty  years  ago,  attached 

*  Originally  published  in  1842,  in  review  of  the  following  works  :—l.  "Report 
relating  to  Capital  Punishment,  presented  to  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  Feb.  22,  1836." 

2.  "  Report  on  Capital  Punishment,  presented  to  the  Assembly  of  the  State  of  New- 
York,  April  14,  1841." 


344  CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT. 

the  punishment  of  death  to  more  than  two  hundred  different 
offences,  many  of  which  were  of  a  comparatively  trivial  character. 
Thus  it  was  a  capital  felony  to  steal  property  to  the  value  of  five 
shillings  privately  from  a  shop,  or  to  the  value  of  forty  shillings 
from  a  dwelhng  house,  to  steal  to  the  amount  of  forty  shillings  on 
any  navigable  river,  to  steal  privately  from  the  person,  or  to  steal 
from  any  bleaching  ground  in  England  or  Ireland.  A  still  more 
sanguinary  act,  passed  under  the  reien  of  Elizabeth,  made  it  a 
capital  offence  for  any  person  above  the  age  of  fourteen,  to  asso- 
ciate for  a  month  with  gypsies.  The  latest  instance  of  the 
execution  of  this  last  act,  was  under  the  reign  of  Charles  I. ; 
though  Lord  Hale  mentions  that  as  many  as  thirteen  persons 
had,  within  this  time,  suffered  death  under  it,  at  a  single  assize. 
When  these  severe  statutes  were  enacted,  it  was  doubtless  intended 
that  their  penalties  should  be  faithfully  executed,  as  no  sensible 
men  would  ever  make  laws  without  the  design  of  carrying 
them  into  effect.  But  as  the  exigencies  of  commerce,  trade,  or 
manufactures,  which  had  seemed  to  call  for  this  bloody  protection, 
passed  away,  or  as  experience  demonstrated  the  inexpediency 
of  so  sanguinary  a  code,  and  an  enlightened  public  sentiment 
revolted  at  its  cruelty,  its  provisions  fell  gradually  into  disuse. 
Under  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  Hollinshed  states  that  not  less 
than  two  thousand  persons  perished  annually  under  the  hands 
of  the  executioner.  But  during  the  seven  years,  from  1802  to 
1809,  the  average  number  of  executions  for  each  year  was  only 
nine  and  a  half;  and  these  were  chiefly  for  the  gravest  offences. 
During  this  same  period  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-two  persons 
were  committed  to  Newgate,  for  privately  stealing  in  shops  and 
dwelling  houses,  but  of  this  whole  number  only  one  was  executed. 
The  evidence  of  these  and  like  facts  \vould  be  conclusive  to  any 
American  mind,  that  the  English  system  of  penal  law,  interpreted 
according  to  the  intention  of  its  founders,  had  become  obsolete. 
But  it  affords  a  curious  illustration  of  the  conservative 
tenacity  with  which  English  politicians  clung,  more  a  few 
years  since  than  now,  to  the  institutions  of  their  ancestors,  that 
whenever  it  was  proposed  to  amend  their  criminal  laws  by  the 
light  which  experience  had  shed  upon  their  operation,  their  very 
blunders  were  forthwith  praised  as  excellences.  Thus  Paley 
exalts  the  wisdom  which  had  planned  a  penal  code  by  which  severe 
punishments  are  denounced,  while,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases, 
only  mild  ones  are  inflicted.  And  when  Sir  Samuel  Romilly  com- 
menced, in  1807,  his  efforts  to  reform  the  criminal  code  by 
removing  sundry  minor  offences  from  the  list  of  capital  felonies, 
where  they  remained  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  illustrate  the 
*'  wise  provision  of  our  ancestors,"  by  which  they  had  afl!ixed  to 
certain  crimes  a  penalty  which,  in  the  altered  state  of  society,  it 
was  deemed  expedient  never  to  inflict,  he  was  visited  with  abun- 
dant reproach,  and  denounced  as  a  rash  and  daring  innovator  who 
was  seeking  nothing  less  than  the  destruction  of  the  entire  system 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT.  90$ 

of  English  jurisprudence.  This  profound  jurist,  by  the  most 
untiring  efforts,  protracted  through  several  successive  sessions  of 
Parliament,  was  able  to  carry  only  three  of  the  bills  which  he 
introduced,  by  which  the  acts  were  repealed  which  inflicted  the 
punishment  of  death  upon  persons  stealing  privily  from  the  person, 
stealing  from  bleaching  grounds,  and  stealing  to  the  amount  of 
forty  shillings  on  navigable  rivers.  But,  in  1837,  such  has  been 
the  influence  of  the  movement  party  in  England,  bills  were  brought 
into  Parliament,  and  carried  through  without  difficulty,  by  which 
the  punishment  of  death  was  removed  at  once  from  about  two 
hundred  offences,  leaving  it  applicable  only  to  some  aggravated 
forms  of  burglary  and  robbery — arson,  with  danger  to  life — rape — 
high  treason — and  murder,  and  attempts  to  murder.  By  a  subse- 
quent act,  the  crime  of  rape  was  taken  out  of  the  list  of  capital 
oflTences,  leaving  the  criminal  law  of  England,  so  far  as  the  punish- 
ment of  death  is  concerned,  in  as  mild  a  form  as  it  bears  in  most 
countries. 

In  our  own  country  the  only  offences  that  are  punishable  with 
death,  in  the  great  majority  of  the  States,  are  treason  and  murder  ; 
and  as  treason  against  a  particular  State  is  a  crime  that  cannot  well 
be  commilted  so  long  as  our  present  national  compact  survives, 
the  punishment  of  death  may  be  considered  as  practically  attach- 
ing only  to  murder.  The  wilful  and  malicious  destruction  of  human 
life,  the  greatest  crime  which  man  can  commit  against  his  fellow 
man,  is  distinguished,  as  it  ought  to  be,  from  every  other  crime,  by 
the  direst  penalty  known  to  the  law.  No  one  will  deny  that  the 
severest  punishment  which  it  would  be  right  or  expedient  for 
society  to  inflict  for  any  offence,  should  be  appropriated  to  this 
greatest  of  all  oflTences.  But  the  question  has  been  raised,  both  in 
England  and  in  many  of  our  own  States,  whether  society  has  the 
right  in  any  case  to  take  away  human  life,  or  whether  having  the 
right,  some  punishment  milder,  and  equally  eflicacious,  might  not 
be  substituted  for  this  dread  resort.  Scarcely  a  year  passes  in 
which  petitions  are  not  sent  in  to  some  of  our  legislatures,  praying 
for  the  abolition  of  capital  punishment  ;  and  of  late  the  friends  of 
this  proposed  change  in  our  penal  laws  seem  to  have  been  specially 
active.  Their  efforts  have  produced  so  much  effect  that  it  is  plainly 
incumbent  upon  those  who  are  opposed  to  the  innovation,  to  state 
and  vindicate  their  dissent. 

In  canvassing  the  arguments  of  the  advocates  for  the  repeal  of 
capital  punishment,  we  shall  confine  the  discussion  to  the  case  of 
murder.  Whatever  doubt  may  exist  as  to  the  expediency  of 
punishing  any  other  crimes  with  death,  we  have  no  doubt  that  it 
is  both  the  right  and  the  duty  of  society  to  accept  of  no  price,  to 
make  no  commutation  for  the  life  of  the  murderer.  The  strength 
of  this  conviction  has  not  been  in  the  least  degree  impaired  by  a 
dispassionate  consideration  of  the  reasonings  contained  in  the  two 
reports  to  the  legislatures  of  Massachusetts  and  New  York,  both 


346  CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT. 

of  which  strenuously  advocate  the  entire  abolition  of  capital  pun- 
ishment. 

Neither  of  these  reports  contains  any  facts  or  arguments  which 
would  afford  much  food  for  thought  to  one  who  had  previously 
read  Mr.  Livingstones  report  on  the  same  subject  to  the  legislature 
of  Louisiana,  in  which  the  same  views  are  advocated  ;  nor  would 
either  of  them  commend  itself  by  its  style  and  manner  to  a  truth- 
seeking  spirit.  They  display  more  of  the  anxiety  and  heat  of  the 
special  pleader,  than  of  the  calm  fairness  of  the  earnest  inquirer 
after  truth.  There  is  in  both  of  them,  but  more  especially  in 
Mr.  O'Sullivan's  report  to  the  New  York  legislature,  a  confident 
array  of  mere  plausibilities  and  an  anxious  grasping  after  every- 
thing which  can  be  made  to  wear  the  semblance  of  aid  to  his 
cause,  which  indicate  too  plainly  the  interested  advocate  of  a 
foregone  conclusion.  If  the  efficacy  of  the  punishment  of  death 
as  an  example  to  deter  others  from  the  commission  of  crime 
is  to  be  impeached,  Mr.  O'Sullivan  finds  no  difficulty  in  proving 
that  solitary  imprisonment  for  life  is  really  a  more  dreadful 
punishment  than  death ;  but  this  does  not  hinder  him  in  another 
part  of  his  argument  from  advocating  the  abolition  of  capital 
punishment  on  the  ground  of  its  needless  severity.  If  a 
remote  fact  lying  far  back  upon  the  very  borders  of  the  deluge 
seems  to  lend  him  any  countenance,  he  presses  it  at  once  into  his 
service  without  inquiring  into  its  accuracy,  or  properly  considering 
its  relevancy  to  the  case  in  hand.  There  is  an  utter  want  of  that 
kind  of  guarded  and  cautious  statement  which  ought  to  mark  the 
reasons  for  an  impartial  judgment  formed  from  a  comprehensive 
survey  of  the  whole  question.  We  are  persuaded  that  no  one  can 
read  his  essay  without  feeling  as  if  he  were  listening  to  the  intem- 
perate and  one-sided  argument  of  a  hired  advocate,  rather  than  to 
the  candid  summing  up  of  a  judge.  It  is  not  in  this  temper  or 
with  this  spirit  that  great  questions  in  jurisprudence  should  be 
approached.  It  is  not  in  the  exercise  of  such  gifts  as  these  that 
they  can  be  adequately  discussed,  or  wisely  settled.  He  who 
undertakes  to  give  utterance,  through  the  solemn  voice  of  law,  to 
the  sentiment  of  justice  upon  a  question  which  affects  most  deeply 
the  interests  of  a  wide  community,  should  make  it  evident  that  he 
feels  himself  engaged  in  a  work  too  sacred  to  admit  of  that  kind 
of  trifling  with  truth  which  might  be  tolerated  in  defence  of  a 
client  upon  trial.  He  who  would  innovate  upon  an  institution, 
established  in  all  lands  and  perpetuated  through  all  ages,  may  be 
fairly  expected  to  show  his  competency  for  the  task,  by  that  high 
bearing  which,  resulting  from  consciousness  of  well  considered 
aims,  and  the  dispassionate  conviction  of  truth,  cannot  subsist  for 
a  moment  in  connexion  with  the  evasions  and  subtleties  of  sophis- 
tical argument. 

We  are  persuaded  that  Mr.  O'Sullivan  has  greatly  underrated 
the  intelligence  and  moral  sense  of  the  community,  if  he  supposes 
that  an  argument  upon  one  of  the  gravest  questions  that  can  come 


I 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT. 


mr 


before  a  legislative  body,  can  maintain  at  one  time  the  gratuitous 
cruelty  of  a  punishment,  and  at  another  dwell  upon  the  greater 
severity  of  the  proposed  substitute,  without  at  once  divesting  its 
author's  opinions  of  all  influence  with  thinking  men.     Such  incon- 
sistency does  not  entitle  us  to  charge  him  with  dishonesty.     We 
cannot  rightfully  infer  that  he  is  defending  a  conclusion  which  he 
knows  to  be  wrong ;  or  that  without  caring  whether  it  is  right  or 
wrong,  he  is  seeking  to  make  for  himself  political  capital,  by 
espousing  and  advocating  an  opinion  which  he  knows  to  be  popu- 
lar with  certain  classes  of  the  community.      Such  unhallowed 
influences  have  played  their  part  before  now  in  the  work  of  legis- 
lation.    Such  miserable  mountebanks  have  climbed  up  into  high 
places  and  pretended  to  utter  in  the  ears  of  a  nation  truth  thai 
had  been  sought  in  the  patience  and  earnestness  of  love,  when 
they  have  really  had  in  mind  only  the  advancement  of  their  own 
private  interests.     The  public  can  receive  no  valuable  instruction 
from  such  men ;  for  though,  through  a  fortunate  combination  of 
the  public  good  with  their  private  aims,  it  should  happen  that  their 
teachings,  in  some  particular  case,  are  true,  they  will  be  wanting 
in  the  simple  sincerity  which  marks  those  who  only  are  qualified 
to  teach,  who  in  searching  after  truth  have  waited  at  the  posts  of 
her  doors,  and  watched  long  at  her  temple  gates.     But  the  want 
of  this  sincerity  may  arise  from  other  causes  than  dishonesty,  and 
we  are  glad  to  believe  that  in  Mr.  O'Sullivan  it  has  a  different 
origin.     He  may  belong  to  that  class  of  men  who  seem  to  labour 
under  an  infirmity  of  mind,  natural  or  acquired,  which  disqualifies 
them  from  seeing  more  than  a  small  part  of  any  subject  at  once. 
His  temperament  may  be  such  as  to  place  his  reason  too  much 
under  the  command  of  his  feelings.     The  weakness  of  compassion 
may  have  led  him  to  shrink  from  the  idea  of  putting  a  man  to 
death  even  for  the  most  horrid  crime.     Under  the  influence  of 
this  feeling  he  may  have  taken  up  the  belief  that  it  was  wrong 
for  human  justice  ever  to  become  the  minister  of  death,  and  then 
tasked  the  talent  which  he  evidently  possesses  to  defend  this  belief. 
But  whatever  may  be  the  cause,  the  incompetency  of  any  man  to 
discuss  and  decide  great  questions  in  jurisprudence  or  morals  is 
evident,  the  moment  that  he  makes  it  manifest  that  the  belief  which 
he  avows  and  inculcates  rests  upon  other  grounds  than  the  truth, 
the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth.    Mr.  O'Sullivan's  opinion 
is  for  this  reason  deprived  of  all  weight  as  authority.     His  argu- 
ments do  not  furnish,  in  all  respects,  the  true  reasons  for  his  own 
belief;  inasmuch  as  it  is  impossible  for  any  man  to  cherish  the 
reverence  which  he  professes  to  entertain  for  the  sacred  writings 
as  a  revelation  from  God,  and  at  the  same  time  look  upon  the 
Hebrew  code  as  the  work  of  Moses  aided  by  his  pagan  father-in- 
law,  Jethro ;  or  to  believe  that  imprisonment  for  life  should  be 
substituted  for  the  punishment  of  death,  because  being  more  mild 
it  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  benevolent  spirit  of  Christianity, 
and  being  more  severe  it  will  be  a  more  effectual  restraint  upon 


048  CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT. 

crime.  But  we  propose  to  examine  the  arguments  which  he  has 
produced,  to  see  what  weight  they  ought  to  have  with  other 
minds.  We  shall  confine  our  remarks  chiefly  to  Mr.  O'Sullivan's 
report,  because  it  contains  the  substance  of  Mr.  Rantoul's,  and 
much  more  besides. 

We  do  not  propose  to  give  a  full  exposition  of  the  reasons  for 
capital  punishment,  any  further  than  these  shall  be  brought  out  in 
reply  to  the  objections  urged  against  it.  We  propose  no  new 
measure.  We  advocate  no  untried  experiment.  He  who  comes 
forward  with  a  novel  theory  respecting  the  best  mode  of  preserv- 
ing human  life,  should  come  prepared  with  the  amplest  defence  of 
its  grounds  and  the  clearest  exposition  of  its  tendencies.  But  in 
maintaining  an  institution  which  has  received  the  assent  of  all  civil- 
ized nations  from  the  days  of  Noah  until  now,  we  do  all  that  can 
be  reasonably  required  of  us,  when  we  show  the  insufficiency  of 
the  reasons  alleged  in  behalf  of  any  proposed  change. 

Mr.  O'Sullivan  attempts,  in  the  first  instance,  to  invalidate  the 
argument  for  capital  punishment  derived  from  the  sacred  scriptures. 
In  this  he  shows  his  wisdom  ;  for  if,  as  he  states,  the  opinion  that 
the  punishment  of  murder  by  death  has  not  alone  the  sanction  but 
the  express  injunction  of  divine  wisdom,  is  the  basis  of  nine-tenths 
of  the  opposition  still  to  be  encountered  in  current  society  to  its 
abolition,  he  could  not  expect  to  accomplish  any  good  end  by  his 
argument  until  he  had  first  shown  the  erroneousness  of  this  very 
general  impression.  He  confesses  for  himself  that  if  he  considered 
the  question  under  discussion  as  answered  by  a  divine  command, 
he  would  not  attempt  to  go  further  to  consult  the  uncertain  oracles 
of  human  reason ;  and  rightly  supposing  that  there  is  through  the 
great  mass  of  the  community  a  like  reverence  for  what  is  esteemed 
a  divine  command,  his  first  eflTort  is  to  expose  the  popular  error  on 
this  subject.  This  is  the  weakest,  and  in  every  way,  the  least 
respectable  part  of  his  essay. 

He  attempts,  in  the  first  place,  to  set  aside  the  argument  for  a 
divine  command  enjoining  capital  punishment  for  murder,  drawn 
from  the  Mosaic  code.  This  code,  he  contends,  was  framed  for 
the  government  of  a  people  ungovernable  beyond  all  others — "  a 
nation  who  at  that  time  probably  exceeded  any  of  the  present 
hordes  of  savages  in  the  wilds  of  Africa  or  Tartary,  in  slavish 
ignorance,  sordid  vices,  loathsome  diseases,  and  brutal  lusts" — and 
who  could  only  be  restrained  therefore  by  institutions  of  the  stern- 
est and  most  sanguinary  character.  If  the  provisions  of  this 
"  Draconian  code"  in  relation  to  the  punishment  of  murder  are 
binding  upon  us,  in  the  altered  state  of  society  as  it  now  exist?, 
then  do  they  equally  bind  us  to  inflict  capital  punishment  upon 
many  other  oflfences.  Such  is  his  argument.  And  though  we 
have  strong  objections  to  the  statements  which  he  makes,  copied 
chiefly  from  Mr.  Rantoul,  considered  as  an  exposition  of  the  true 
character  and  intent  of  the  Mosaic  code,  yet  we  are  perfectly 
willing  to  admit  the  force  of  his  argument  as  an  answer  to  those, 


I 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT.  349 

if  anv  such  there  be,  who  rest  the  defence  of  capital  punishment 
upon*  the  statutes  of  this  code.  Nor  was  it  at  all  necessary,  in 
order  to  give  his  argument  upon  this  point  its  full  force,  that  he 
should  stigmatize  the  laws  of  Moses  as  containing  so  many  "  crude, 
cruel,  and  unchristian  features,"  and  then  to  cover  this  rabid  vio- 
lence, reduce  these  laws,  with  the  exception  of  the  ten  command- 
ments, to  a  level,  so  far  as  the  Divine  agency  was  concerned  in 
their  enactment,  with  "  any  other  system  of  laws  which  the  Supreme 
Governor  of  the  universe  has  at  different  times  allowed  to  be 
framed  and  applied  to  practice  among  nations,  by  lawgivers  whom 
we  must  also  regard  as  the  mere  instruments  in  his  hands."  It  is 
true  that  in  relation  to  the  distinction  which  is  here  drawn  between 
the  divine  origin  of  the  decalogue  and  the  other  parts  of  the  Jewish 
code,  the  effect  of  which  is  nothing  less  than  to  make  Moses  an 
unprincipled  impostor,  Mr.  O'SuUivan  states  that  the  committee 
consider  it  incumbent  on  them  to  present  it,  though  they  refrain 
from  expressing  their  opinion  respecting  it.  If  Mr.  O'Sulhvan 
believes  in  the  justness  of  this  distinction  why  did  he  not  frankly 
and  fearlessly  say  so  ?  If  he  does  not  believe  in  it  why  seek  to 
avail  himself  of  its  help?  We  would  as  soon  confide  in  a  man 
as  our  adviser  and  guide,  who  would  burn  down  his  house  to  warm 
his  cold  hands  by,  as  in  one  who  to  gain  a  small  fraction  of  aid  in 
establishing  a  favourite  conclusion  would  not  scruple  to  make  use 
of  arguments,  not  sincerely  believed,  the  effect  of  which  is  to 
destroy  the  credibility  of  no  small  portion  of  divine  revelation. 

We  have  never  met  with  an  argument  which  professed  to  derive 
the  obligation  to  punish  murder  with  death  from  the  Hebrew  sta- 
tutes to  that  effect.  We  are  perfectly  willing  to  admit  that  these 
statutes  are  of  no  further  we  ightin  the  argument  than  as  a  revela- 
tion of  the  will  of  God  that  at  that  time  and  among  that  people  mur- 
der should  thus  be  punished.  They  constitute  a  full  and  sufficient 
answer  to  those  who  deny  the  right  of  society  to  take  away  life  in 
punishment  of  crime,  but,  taken  by  themselves,  they  do  not  prove 
that  it  is  our  duty  now,  as  it  was  that  of  the  Jews,  to  punish  mur- 
der with  death,  nor  even  that  it  is  expedient  for  us  thus  to  punish 
it.  Did  the  Bible  shed  no  other  light  upon  this  question  we  should 
take  the  fact  that  among  the  Jews  murder  was,  by  the  divine  com- 
mand, punished  with  death,  only  as  one  element  in  the  argument 
by  which  we  should  seek  to  prove  that  it  was  expedient  for  us  to 
inflict  upon  it  the  same  penalty. 

But  there  is  another  statute  upon  this  subject,  given  long  anterior 
to  the  Mosaic  law,  which  Mr.  O'Sullivan  finds  it  much  more  diffi- 
cult to  dispose  of  in  accordance  with  his  wishes,  though  he  flatters 
himself  that  he  has  not  only  "  destroyed  all  its  seeming  force  as 
an  argument  in  favour  of  capital  punishment,  but  transferred  its 
application  to  the  other  side."  We  allude,  of  course,  to  the  direc- 
tions given  to  Noah,  recorded  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  verses  of  the 
ninth  chapter  of  Genesis. 

"  And  surely  your  blood  of  your  lives  will  I  require ;  at  the 


350  CAPITAL   PUNISHMENT. 

hand  of  every  beast  will  I  require  it,  and  at  the  hand  of  man ;  at 
the  hand  of  every  man's  brother  will  I  require  the  life  of  man. 
Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed  ;  for 
in  the  image  of  God  made  he  man.'* 

Mr.  O'Sullivan's  comment  upon  this  passage  strikes  us  as  an 
extraordinary  specimen  of  reasoning. 

"  The  true  understanding  of  this  important  passage  is  to  be  sought  in  the  ori- 
ginal Hebrew  text,  and  in  a  comparison  of  its  terms  with  the  adjacent  context, 
feuch  an  examination  will  be  found  to  reverse  directly  the  sense  in  which  it  is 
usually  received,  and  to  show  that  our  common  English  version  is  a  clear  miS' 
translation^  founded  on  an  ambiguity  in  the  original,  which  ambiguity  has  been 
decided  by  the  first  translators,  and  so  left  ever  since,  by  the  light,  or  rather  by 
the  darkness  of  their  own  preconceived  views  on  this  subject — views  derived  from 
the  established  barbarian  practice  of  their  time.  The  word  in  the  Hebrew  {sho- 
phaieh).  which  is  here  rendered  '  whoso  sheddeth,'  is  simply  the  present  participle 
'  shedding,'  in  which,  in  the  Hebrew  as  in  the  English,  there  is  no  distinction  of 
gender.  And  the  word  which  is  rendered  '  his '  {damo\  there  being  no  neuter  in 
that  language,  may  with  equal  right  be  rendered  '  its.'  The  whole  passage  is 
therefore  fully  as  well  susceptible  of  the  translation, '  whatsoever  sheddeth  man's 
blood,  by  man  shall  (or  may)  its  blood  be  shed,' — as  of  that  which  has  been  given 
to  it,  from  no  other  reason  than  the  prejudice  of  a  '  foregone  conclusion.'  Several 
of  the  most  able  commentators  on  the  Scriptures  give  the  words  virtually  the 
same  interpretation ;  and  that  profound  and  learned  critic,  Michaelis,  of  Gottingen, 
in  his  Commentaries  on  the  laws  of  Moses  (ch.  iv.,  §  3,  art.  274),  says  expressly, 
'  the  sixth  verse  must  be  rendered,  not  whosoever ,  but  whatsoever  sheddeth  human 
blood.' 

"  The  propriety  of  this  correction  of  our  common  English  version  of  the  pas- 
sage in  question  will  appear  very  clear,  when  we  collate  it  with  both  the  pre- 
ceding and  the  following  words.  In  the  preceding  verse,  after  having  alluded  to 
that  mystic  sanctity  of  blood,  as  containing  the  essential  principle  of  animal  life, 
which  we  afterwards  find  so  strikingly  to  pervade  the  Mosaic  system,  the  cove- 
nant proceeds : 

" '  And  surely  your  blood  of  your  lives  will  I  require  ;  at  the  hand  of  every  beast 
will  I  require  it,  and  at  the  hand  of  man  ;  at  the  hand  of  every  man's  brother  will 
I  require  the  life  of  man. 

" '  Whoso  (whatsoever)  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  (its)  blood  be 
shed  ;  for  in  the  image  of  God  made  he  man.^ 

"  The  very  reason  here  given  for  the  prohibition  of  the  shedding  of  the  blood 
of  man,  is  the  defacement  of  the  image  of  its  Creator  in  the  '  human  form  divine.^ 
Does  this  high  and  sacred  principle  lose  its  force  or  its  application,  because  the 
criminal  may  himself  have  been  guilty  of  a  previous  outrage  upon  its  sanctity? 
Can  that  afford  any  justification  for  a  repetition  of  the  same  outrage  upon  the 
same  '  image  of  God  ?'  Where  is  the  authority  for  any  such  assumption  ?  The 
distinction  here  drawn  is  plain.  The  beast  that  sheddeth  man's  blood, '  by 
Tuan'  may  its  blood  be  shed  ;  but  when  man's  blood  is  shed  by  man's  brother, '  /' 
will  require  it  at  his  hands — by  penalties,  into  the  nature  of  which  it  is  not  for 
us  to  attempt  to  penetrate.  The  object  of  the  whole  passage  is,  clearly,  to 
establish,  on  the  most  solemn  basis,  the  great  idea  of  the  holiness  of  the  principle 
of  life,  and  especially  human  life.  The  destruction  of  animal  life  is  permitted  for 
'  meat,'  being  prohibited  by  implication  for  any  other  wanton  purpose ;  while 
its  being  thus  declared  forfeited  in  atonement  for  the  destruction  of  the  life 
of  man,  can  have  no  other  reason — the  brute  being  incapable  of  moral  guilt — than 
to  strengthen  and  deepen  the  idea  of  the  sanctity  of  that  life  in  the  minds  of  the 
human  race  itself.  What  can  be  more  absurd  than  an  interpretation  which,  by 
authorizing  the  practice  of  public  judicial  murder,  in  the  most  deliberate  coldness 
of  blood,  is  directly  and  fatally  subversive  of  the  very  essential  idea  which  con- 
stitutes the  basis  of  the  whole  passage !     Surely,  then,  instead  of  any  sanction 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT.  351 

beiuff  afforded  by  this  passage  to  the  infliction  of  the  punishment  of  death  for  any 
human  crime— to  this  defacement  and  outrage  of  the  '  image  of  God,'  in  the 
person  of  man — it  passes  against  that  very  practice  a  far  more  awful  sentence  of 
condemnation  than  any  which  human  reason  could  have  framed,  or  human  lips 
uttered." 

The  Hebrew  scholar  may  form  from  the  remark  upon  "  damo^* 
a  judgment  of  Mr.  O'Sullivan's  fitness  to  dogmatize  so  confidently- 
respecting  the  mistake  made  by  our  English  translators  of  the 
Bible.  These  translators,  however  prejudiced  they  may  have 
been  in  favour  of  any  barbarian  practices  of  their  time,  were  at 
least  men  who  knew  the  difference  between  a  Hebrew  noun, 
and  its  pronominal  suflix.  Mr.  O'Sullivan  quotes  the  authority 
of  Michaelis  for  substituting  "  its"  in  place  of  "  his"  in  this  pas- 
sage. It  is  true  that  Michaelis  advocates  this  change,  but  not 
in  the  sense  for  which  Mr.  O'Sullivan  contends.  Mr.  O'SuIli- 
van's  argument  requires  that  the  pronoun  should  be  neuter,  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  masculine.  Michaelis  was  too  profound 
and  learned  a  critic  to  propose  any  such  absurdity  as  this.  He 
contends  that  as  the  original  pronoun  may  be  either  masculine 
or  neuter,  it  should  be  translated  by  our  neuter,  that  it  may 
include  both.  His  idea  of  the  true  meaning  of  this  passage 
would  be  accurately  expressed,  using  the  plural  number 
instead  of  the  singular,  by  the  translation,  "  the  shedders 
of  blood,  by  man  shall  their  blood  be  shed."  The  use  which 
Michaelis  makes  of  this  translation  is  to  extend,  instead  of  lowering 
and  limiting  the  application  of  this  command,  and  both  he  and  the 
readers  of  this  report  are  unfairly  treated  when  his  authority  is  so 
disingenuously  perverted.  This  profound  critic  was  learned  in  the 
laws  of  nature,  and  of  nations,  as  well  as  in  Hebrew  etymologies, 
and  he  expresses  the  earnest  hope  that  "  none  of  his  readers  enter- 
tain those  new  fangled  notions  of  compassion  which,  by  way  of 
avoiding  capital  punishments,  condemn  delinquents  to  be  cast  into 
prisons  and  there  fed." 

But  we  are  told  that  the  "  very  reason  here  given  for  the  pro- 
hibition of  the  shedding  of  the  blood  of  man  is  the  defacement  of  the 
image  of  his  Creator,"  and  are  asked  "  whether  this  high  and  sacred 
principle  loses  its  force  or  its  application  because  the  criminal  may 
have  himself  been  guilty  of  a  previous  outrage  upon  its  sanctity." 
It  is  really  difficult  to  answer  such  argument  as  this  with  the  respect 
that  is  due  to  the  reasoner,  if  not  to  his  reasoning.  If  it  should  be 
proposed  to  punish  the  man  who  has  injured  the  property  of  another 
by  a  'fine,  that  is,  by  taking  away  from  him  against  his  will,  a 
certain  portion  of  his  own  property,  would  it  not  be  thought  a 
piece  of  effrontery  rather  than  an  argument  in  the  opposer  who 
should  contend  that  this  would  be  an  outrage  upon  the  same  sacred 
right  of  property  which  the  criminal  had  himself  violated?  Or  would 
it  be  deemed  a  valid  argument  against  punishing  the  crime  of  false 
imprisonment  by  the  imprisonment  of  the  offender,  that  the  punish- 
ment would  infringe  the  same  inherent  right  to  liberty,  the  violation 


352  CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT. 

of  which  constitutes  the  offence  ?  If  in  favour  of  such  punishment 
there  should  be  urged  the  great  importance  of  the  right  of  personal 
liberty  and  the  heinousness  of  any  outrage  upon  it,  would  all  this 
be  turned  not  aside  but  upon  the  other  side  of  the  question,  by 
simply  asking,  "  whether  this  high  and  sacred  principle  loses  any 
of  its  force  because  the  criminal  may  himself  hare  been  guilty  of 
a  previous  outrage  upon  its  sanctity."  The  understandings  of  our 
legislators  must  be  rated  at  a  low  standard  by  any  one  who  sup- 
poses that  such  reasoning  as  this  can  impose  upon  them. 

The  remaining  part  of  the  argument  upon  this  passage  falls  to 
the  ground  with  the  proposed  amendment  of  our  translation,  for 
which,  in  the  sense  contended  for  by  Mr.  O'SuUivan,  there  is  not 
the  shadow  of  foundation.  Let  us  look  at  this  passage,  supplying 
the  place  of  "  his  "  in  the  sixth  verse  by  our  ambiguous  pronoun, 
and  for  this  purpose  using  the  plural  number.     It  will  then  read : 

"  And  surely  your  blood  of  your  lives  will  I  require ;  at  the 
hand  of  every  beast  will  I  require  it,  and  at  the  hand  of  man ;  at 
the  hand  of  every  man's  brother  will  t  require  the  life  of  man." 

"  The  shedders  of  marCs  blood,  by  man  shall  their  blood  be  shed; 
for  in  the  image  of  God  made  he  man." 

We  are  perfectly  willing  to  grant  to  the  other  side  of  the  ques- 
tion whatever  benefit  may  be  derived  from  such  a  correction  of 
the  common  translation.  The  passage  as  it  thus  stands,  interpreted 
according  to  its  obvious  meaning,  presents  no  difficulty. 

The  only  phrase  contained  in  it  that  can  well  give  rise  to  any 
misconception  in  the  mind  of  one  who  is  not  seeking  to  torture  its 
meaning,  is  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fifth  verse ;  "  at  the  hand  of 
every  man's  brother  will  I  require  the  life  of  man."  This  is  some- 
times interpreted  to  mean,  that  at  the  hand  of  the  brother  of  every 
slain  man,  that  is  of  the  whole  community  or  society  of  which 
he  formed  a  part,  inquisition  shall  be  made  for  the  blood  shed,  from 
the  responsibility  of  which  they  can  be  relieved  only  by  the  death 
of  the  murderer.  We  do  not  mean  to  question  the  truth  of  this 
opinion,  but  such  is  not  the  sense  of  the  passage.  The  Hebrew 
phrase  translated  "  every  man's  brother  "  (aish  ahiv),  is  an  idioma- 
tic form  of  speech,  meaning,  the  one  and  other ;  so  that  "  at  the 
hand  of  every  man's  brother  "  is,  as  Gesenius  says,  "  repetitio  ver- 
borum  antecedentium,  haud  quidem  otiosa, sed  emphatica"  a  repeti- 
tion, not  unmeaning  but  emphatic,  of  the  preceding  words  at  the 
hand  of  man."  We  make  no  attempt  to  sustain  this  interpretation 
by  comparing  parallel  passages,  or  adducing  authorities,  being  per- 
suaded that  it  will  be  called  in  question  by  no  one  who  will  turn 
to  the  passage  in  his  Hebrew  Bible. 

In  this  passage  God  declares  in  the  first  instance,  that  he  will 
surely  inquire  after,  that  is  avenge,  the  blood  of  man.  He  then 
proceeds  to  state  from  whom  he  will  exact  this  responsibility  ;  at 
the  hand  of  every  beast  that  has  shed  the  blood  of  man,  will  I 
require  it ;  and  much  more,  at  the  hand  of  man,  even  at  the  hand 
of  one  and  another,  that  is,  of  every  man,  will  I  require  the  blood 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT.      ^       *     •  353 

of  the  man  whom  he  has  slain;  there  shall  be  no  escape  on  the 
part  of  any  one  who  has  stained  his  hands  with  blood  from  the 
account  which  must  be  rendered  of  that  blood. 

The  next  verse  proceeds  to  state  how  this  requisition  shall  be 
made,  what  punishment  this  crime  shall  incur,  and  who  shall  be 
the  agents  of  divine  justice  in  inflicting  that  punishment.  The 
shedders  of  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  their  blood  be  shed.  It  is 
too  plain  for  argument,  that  though  this  verse  be  thus  translated, 
so  as  to  involve  the  same  ambiguity  as  in  the  original,  it  lends 
no  shadow  of  countenance  to  Mr.  O'Sullivan's  interpretation. 
The  previous  verse  has  asserted,  in  general,  that  the  blood  of  man 
shall  not  be  shed  without  inquisition  being  made  for  it,  and  fur- 
ther that  this  inquisition  shall  be  made  from  every  beast  and  every 
man  that  has  shed  the  blood  of  man.  It  is  then  added,  that  they 
who  shed  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  their  blood  be  shed.  Who 
then  are  the  shedders  of  blood  upon  whom  this  doom  is  pronounced? 
Michaelis  contends  that  both  men  and  beasts  are  included. 
Rosenmiiller,  on  the  other  hand,  prefers  the  interpretation  which 
limits  it  to  the  human  shedder  of  blood ;  the  previous  verse 
having  spoken  of  the  punishment  of  both  beast  and  man  for  the 
slaughter  of  man,  this  verse  he  supposes  to  contain  a  repetition  of 
the  principle  in  its  application  to  man,  with  a  distinct  annunciation 
of  the  kind  and  manner  of  his  punishment,  on  account  of  the 
greater  dignity  of  the  offender.  But  no  commentator  ancient  or 
modern  has  ever  given  to  this  passage  an  interpretation  such  as 
Mr.  O'Sullivan  advocates.  It  has  not  one  particle  of  authority  in 
favour  of  it.  There  is  nothing  of  intrinsic  evidence  to  sanction 
it,  nothing  in  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  passage  to  call  for  or 
even  to  warrant  it,  unless  the  whole  question  at  issue  be  begged, 
by  the  assumption  that  it  is  impossible  that  God  can  have  directed 
the  shedding  of  man's  blood.  It  is  in  short  nothing  more  than  the 
desperate  resort  of  a  reasoner  who  is  not  ashamed  to  descend  to 
mere  quibbles  and  plays  upon  words  in  support  of  a  favourite  con- 
clusion. If  it  be  thought  by  any  that  we  have  here  unwarrant- 
ably forgotten  the  distinction  which  we  before  made  between  what 
is  due  to  a  reasoner  and  to  his  reasoning,  let  him  call  to  mind  that 
the  subject  of  this  miserable  trifling  is  the  inspired  revelation  of 
God's  will,  and  that  the  professed  object  of  it  is  to  enlighten  a 
legislature  upon  one  of  the  most  important  questions  which  they  can 
be  called  upon  to  settle.  And  let  them  still  further  read  the  fol- 
lowing extract  from  this  report : — 

"  If  any,  after  this  exposition  of  the  passage,  should  still  desire  to  retain  the 
accustomed  form  to  which  prejudice  may  continue  to  cling,  of  '  whosoever,'  it  is 
clear  that  the  precept  thus  read  would  require  the  sacrifice  of  the  life  of  the 
slayer,  in  atonement  for  the  blood  his  hand  has  spilled,  on  all  occasions,  without 
discrimination  of  circumstances — in  the  most  pardonable  cases  of  sudden  and 
impetuous  passion,  and  even  in  the  most  innocent  case  of  accident,  as  well  as  the 
most  heinous  one  of  coldly  premeditated  murder.  The  terms  of  the  command 
would  be  absolute  and  imperative ;  and  however  unfathomable  to  us  might  seem 
the  mystery  of  its  cruelty,  yet  why  would  it  be  less  consistera  with  reason  than  the 
23 


354  CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT. 

punishment,  upon  the  animal^  of  the  act  of  brute  unconsciousness  and  obedience  to 
its  natural  instincts  ?" 

The  first  part  of  this  paragraph,  in  which  the  lax  principles  of 
interpretation  previously  proceeded  upon  have  become  so  won- 
drously  stringent,  calls  for  no  reply.  It  might  be  improved,  how- 
ever, and  we  are  surprised  that  the  thought  should  have  escaped 
a  mind  that  was  acute  enough  for  this,  by  adding  that  as  the  pre- 
cept reads  it  would  apply  to  the  physician  who  bleeds  his  patient 
no  less  than  to  the  wilful  murderer,  and  that  the  penalty  does  not 
demand  the  death  of  either,  since,  as  it  reads,  it  may  be  literally 
and  fully  satisfied  by  the  loss  of  a  few  ounces  of  blood  from  the 
arm. 

It  is  for  the  latter  part  of  this  paragraph  that  we  have  quoted 
it,  and  yet  we  hardly  dare  trust  ourselves  to  comment  upon  it 
We  are  here  informed  that  the  punishment  of  a  brute,  which  has 
slain  a  man,  which  the  author  of  the  report  admits  is  directed  by 
the  divine  command,  is  no  more  consistent  with  reason  than  the 
sacrifice  of  the  life  of  a  man  who  had  accidentally  slain  his  fellow- 
man.  Who  does  not  feel  his  whole  moral  nature  insulted  by  this 
most  outrageous  declaration  ?  Who  can  doubt  that  any  man  who 
believes  this,  however  vigorous  and  discursive  his  understanding 
might  be,  would  have  yet  to  undergo  the  very  birth-throe  of  reason! 
Where  is  the  reason,  though  yet  in  its  infancy,  that  makes  no  dis- 
tinction between  putting  to  death  a  beast  that  has  been  the  means 
of  death  to  a  m*an,  though  it  had  only  acted  in  obedience  to  its 
unreflecting  instincts,  and  sacrificing  the  life  of  an  unfortunate 
but  innocent  man  ?  What  kind  of  reason  is  it,  with  which  it  is 
consistent  to  destroy  a  man  for  every  cause  which  is  deemed  a 
sufiicient  ground  for  taking  away  the  life  of  a  brute  ?  What 
would  be  thought  of  the  man,  who  in  conducting  a  grave  argument 
on  an  important  question  should  maintain  that  it  would  be  as  con- 
sistent with  reason  to  slay  a  man  for  food  as  to  kill  an  unoffending 
beast  for  the  same  purpose  ?  But  this  would  not  be  more  mon- 
strous than  the  interrogatory  assertion  which  we  have  quoted 
from  this  report. 

We  are  utterly  at  a  loss  to  conceive  upon  what  principles  or  for 
what  purpose  this  assertion  was  made.  It  is  not  even  a  legitimate 
inference  from  the  unspeakably  shallow  and  vile  philosophy  of  the 
Godwin  and  Bentham  schools,  with  which  Mr.  O'Sullivan  is  so 
much  enamoured.  This  philosophy  does  indeed  overlook  entirely 
man's  moral  nature,:  and  reduce  him  to  the  standing  of  a  mere 
beast, — but  then  it  admits  him  to  be  a  noble  beast,  even  the  first  of 
beasts ;  and  having  power  to  that  end  he  may  make  such  use 
of  the  inferior  beasts  as  may  best  promote  his  good.  It  permits 
him  to  kill  them  for  food,  and  could  not  therefore  consistently  deny 
to  him  the  right  to  slay  a  beast  that  had  killed  a  man,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  guarding  the  mystic  sacredness  of  life,  and  associating  an 
idea  of  horror  with  the  shedding  of  human  blood,  for  this  would 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT.  355 

be  a  more  useful  result  than  satisfying  the  appetite  of  a  hungry 
man.  But  yet  whatever  principles  they  are  which  forbid  the 
destruction  of  men  while  they  allow  that  of  animals  for  the  pur- 
poses of  food,  would  apply  with  equal  force  to  prohibit  us  from 
making  use  of  a  lunatic  or  an  accidental  manslayer  to  serve  a  use- 
ful end  by  his  violent  death,  while  they  permit  us  to  use  an  inferior 
animal  for  such  purpose.  There  is  therefore  no  ground  for  Mr. 
O'Sullivan's  assertion  even  in  the  principles  of  this  beastly  philo- 
sophy. 

Nor  can  we  discern  for  what  object  it  is  made.  He  is  seeking 
in  the  paragraph  where  it  is  found  to  reduce  to  the  absurd  the 
common  interpretation  of  the  passage  of  scripture  upon  which  he 
has  been  commenting,  by  showing  that  an  abhorrent  consequence 
flows  from  it,  viz.  that  it  requires  us  to  sacrifice  a  man  who  may 
have  innocently  shed  the  blood  of  a  fellow-man.  But  then  he  im- 
mediately asks  why  this  very  consequence,  so  abhorrent  that  it  has 
just  been  held  up  as  decisive  against  the  received  interpretation  of 
the  law  given  to  Noah,  should  be  deemed  any  more  inconsistent 
with  reason  than  the  killing  of  an  animal  which  he  has  himself  con- 
tended that  the  law  actually  enjoins.  Why,  if  this  is  so,  did  he 
spend  so  much  labour  in  quibbles  upon  the  meaning  of  Hebrew 
words,  of  which  he  knew  literally  nothing  ?  Why  did  he  not,  with 
the  manly  openness  of  a  fair  and  truthful  reasoner,  say  at  once, 
that  this  law,  however  interpreted,  was  utterly  repugnant  to  human 
reason,  and  must  therefore  be  discredited  as  a  part  of  divine  reve- 
lation ?  If  there  is  a  law  which  orders,  as  he  maintains  that  this 
does,  that  to  be  done,  which  is  as  inconsistent  with  right  reason  as 
it  would  be  to  put  an  innocent  man  to  a  violent  death,  then  nothing 
can  be  clearer  than  that  this  law  never  proceeded  from  the  lips  of 
divine  justice.  Had  he  but  frankly  said  this,  it  would  at  least  have 
furnished  some  excuse  for  his  trifling  manner  of  dealing  with  its 
interpretation. 

Such  are  the  arguments  by  which  this  report  attempts  to  set 
aside  the  received  interpretation  of  the  law  of  murder  as  delivered 
to  Noah.  We  have,  in  the  first  instance,  a  philological  argument 
founded  on  the  ambiguous  gender  of  the  participle  and  pronoun  in 
the  sixth  verse,  in  which  it  is  contended  that  this  participle  and 
pronoun  should  be  translated  into  our  neuter  gender  and  limited  bv 
it,  since  any  other  interpretation  of  the  passage  would  lead  to  deli- 
berate, cold-blooded,  judicial  murder.  That  is,  this  limitation  is  to 
be  made  by  the  assumption  that  the  judicial  infliction  of  death  is 
murder,  and  the  only  reason  for  this  assumption  is  that  the  inflic- 
tion of  death  in  punishment  for  murder  would  violate  the  very 
principle  which  it  was  intended  to  guard,  the  sacredness  of 
human  life  ;  a  reason  which  would  compel  us  to  pronounce  every 
law  which  imposes  a  fine,  and  every  jury  which  assesses  pecuniary 
damages  for  injury  to  property,  guilty  of  judicial  stealing.  Let  it 
be  further  observed  that  the  only  reason  given  for  excluding  man 
from  the  shedders  of  blood  upon  whom  the  doom  of  death  is  pro- 


356  CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT. 

nounced,  is  one  that  if  true  would  of  course  make  it  impossible 
that  God  could  at  any  time  have  directed  this  punishment  to  be 
inflicted.  And  yet  we  find  that  in  the  only  code  of  laws  that  ever 
proceeded  directly  from  him,  he  has  distinctly,  and  beyond  all 
question,  affixed  this  penalty  to  murder.  This  is  of  itself  decisive, 
so  far  as  this  part  of  the  argument  is  concerned.  And  we  have  in 
the  next  place  an  argument  which  commences  with  a  reductio  ad 
absurdum^  that  proceeds  upon  principles  too  puerile  to  be  refuted 
except  by  the  application  of  the  same  method,  and  which  ends  by 
a  gratuitous  disclosure  of  the  principles  of  that  bestial  philosophy 
which  looks  upon  man  only  as  the  head  of  the  animal  creation. 

We  have  no  fear  of  the  effect  of  such  argument  upon  the 
honest  and  humble  inquirer  after  truth.  If  he  is  already  a  believer 
in  the  received  interpretation  of  the  law  of  murder,  his  faith  will 
be  strengthened,  if  a  doubter,  his  doubts  will  be  removed,  by 
seeing  how  futile  are  the  attempts  to  set  it  aside,  even  when  con- 
ducted by  the  most  intelligent  and  zealous  of  its  opponents.  The 
law,  as  given  to  Noah,  does  in  its  most  obvious  sense  command 
that  the  wilful  murderer  shall  be  put  to  death.  The  most  critical 
inquiry  into  the  meaning  of  its  terms  only  serves  to  confirm  this 
interpretation.  It  has  been  so  understood  by  all  men,  in  all  ages, 
until  these  latter  days.  The  universal  belief  of  all  Christian  nations 
has  been  that  God  has  pronounced  this  doom  upon  the  murderer ; 
and  the  public  conscience  has  everywhere,  with  mute  awe,  approv- 
ed the  dread  award  of  human  justice,  made  in  fulfilment  of  this 
divine  command. 

But  was  this  law  intended  to  be  of  universal  and  perpetual 
obligation  ?  We  see  nothing  in  the  law  itself,  in  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  was  delivered,  or  in  any  changes  or  revelations 
that  have  since  occurred,  to  limit  its  application.  It  is,  in  its  terms, 
most  general  and  peremptory.  The  reason  assigned  for  its  penalty 
is  founded  on  the  essential  nature  and  relations  of  man.  This 
reason  is  as  true  now  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Noah,  and  ought  to 
have  the  same  force  with  all  who  believe  in  the  spiritual  dignity  of 
man.  If  man  is  somewhat  more  than  an  assemblage  of  digestive 
organs,  and  senses,  and  an  understanding  that  judges  according  to 
sense — if,  in  addition  to  these,  he  has  any  attributes  which  reflect 
however  dimly  the  excellences  of  the  Divinity — then  he  who  wil- 
fully and  maliciously  defaces  this  image  of  God  deserves  the 
same  doom  now,  that  like  outrage  deserved  when  this  law  was 
enacted. 

Nor  is  there  anything  connected  with  the  time  or  manner  of  its 
delivery  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that  it  was  meant  to  be  special  or 
temporary.  It  was  given  in  immediate  connexion  with  that  cove- 
nant of  which  the  seal  still  remains  in  the  ever-recurring  bow  of 
heaven.  It  was  delivered  not  to  the  head  of  a  particular  tribe  or 
nation,  but  to  the  second  progenitor  of  the  human  race,  not  under 
any  peculiar  and  pressing  exigency,  but  at  the  commencement  of  a 
new  order  of  things.     It  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  new  world 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT.  357 

stretching  its  sanction  over  all  people  down  to  the  end  of  time,  to 
prevent  the  outbreaking  of  that  violence  which  had  filled  the  world 
that  was  swept  away.  It  is  idle  to  tell  us  that  the  circumstances, 
and,  with  the  circumstances,  the  character  of  society  have  been 
materially  changed,  and  that  in  the  present  high  state  of  civiliza- 
tion the  severe  enactments  which  were  necessary  for  a  ruder  con- 
dition of  society  are  no  longer  needed.  Have  the  essential 
attributes  of  man  changed  ?  Does  he  bear  any  less  of  the  image 
of  God  now  than  he  did  in  the  days  of  Noah  ?  Is  it  any  less  a 
crime  to  destroy  that  image  now,  than  it  was  then  ?  The  law  has 
no  respect  to  any  peculiar  proneness  to  violence,  existing  at  the 
time  it  was  enacted,  to  any  local  or  national  necessities,  but  passing 
over  everything  that  is  variable  and  accidental,  it  seizes  upoa 
man's  relation  to  God,  involving  the  distinctive  and  unchanging 
attributes  of  humanity,  as  the  sufficient  reason  for  its  fearful 
penalty.  So  long  as  these  attributes  remain  uncjianged,  this  law 
must  stand  in  full  force,  unless  repealed  by  the  same  authority  that 
enacted  it. 

And  where  is  the  evidence  that  it  has  at  any  time  been  repealed? 
The  abrogation  of  the  specialties  of  the  Jewish  code  left  this  prior 
law  untouched.  It  had  its  existence  entirely  separate  and  inde- 
pendent of  the  Mosaic  economy,  and  could  not  therefore  be 
involved  in  its  dissolution.  Nor  is  there  anything  in  the  Bible 
which  can  be  construed  into  an  explicit  repeal  of  this  statute.  It 
is  indeed  maintained,  strangely  enough,  by  Mr.  O'Sullivan,  that  the 
sixth  commandment,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  is  in  opposition  to  this 
statute.  He  denies  our  right  to  limit  this  commandment,  by  inter- 
preting it  to  mean,  thou  shalt  do  no  murder  ;  and  he  really  expends 
a  page  of  declamation  upon  the  "  absolute,  unequivocal"  prohibi- 
tion of  capital  punishment  involved  in  this  precept,  How  is  it  pos- 
sible that  any  man  could  descend  to  such  argument,  if  he  were  not 
intent  upon  carrying  a  side,  rather  than  on  finding  and  defending 
the  truth  ?  There  are,  perhaps,  among  us  legislators  who  do  not 
comprehend  the  laws  that  they  themselves  enact,  but  it  may  surely 
be  presumed  that  in  this  case  the  lawgiver  understood  the  meaning 
of  his  own  precept ;  and  we  find  that  in  immediate  connexion  with 
it  he  delivers  a  body  of  laws  which  direct  the  magistrate  to  inflict 
the  punishment  of  death,  in  what  Mr.  O'Sullivan  supposes,  an  exces- 
sive number  of  cases.  Or  if  we  avail  ourselves  of  the  distinction 
which  the  report  makes,  but  respecting  which  the  committee  refrain 
from  expressing  any  opinion,  and  imagine  that  though  Moses  pre- 
tended to  receive  these  laws  from  God,  they  were  really  of  his  own 
invention  ;  yet  we  cannot  doubt  that  Moses  understood  the  true 
interpretation  of  the  sixth  commandment  ;  nor  suppose  that  he 
would  have  had  the  hardihood  to  deliver  to  the  people,  as  coming 
from  God,  a  body  of  laws  that  were  in  direct  contravention  to  it. 
We  are  sure  our  readers  will  sympathize  with  the  humiliation  we 
feel  in  being  compelled  to  expose  such  paltry  subterfuges — sophis- 


358  CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT. 

try  is  too  respectable  a  name  for  them — ^in  the  conduct  of  an  argu- 
ment upon  such  a  question. 

But  it  is  contended  that  a  virtual  repeal  of  the  penalty  for  murder 
may  be  inferred  from  the  general  spirit  of  the  gospel,  and  espe- 
cially from  its  many  precepts  in  which  forgiveness  of  injuries  is 
inculcated,  and  the  indulgence  of  a  revengeful  spirit  forbidden. 
We  do  not  understand  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  as  offering  any 
impunity  to  crime.  It  is  indeed  a  proclamation  of  mercy,  but  of 
mercy  gaining  its  ends,  and  herein  lies  its  glory,  without  any 
sacrifice  of  the  claims  of  justice.  But  we  are  told  that  the  gospel 
forbids  us  to  avenge  ourselves,  or  to  recompense  evil  for  evil,  and 
requires  us  on  the  other  hand  to  love  them  that  hate  us,  and 
do  good  unto  them  that  despitefully  use  us.  If  our  argument 
were  with  those  who  are  opposed  to  all  human  government,  as 
an  unauthorized  interference  with  the  rights  of  man,  we  should 
attempt  to  prove,  what  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  these  precepts 
were  not  intended  to  apply  to  men  in  their  collective  capacity  as 
constituting  a  society,  and  that  they  are  perfectly  consistent  with 
another  class  of  precepts  which  make  it  the  duty  of  the  magistrate 
to  bear  not  the  sword  in  vain  and  to  be  a  terror  to  evil  doers. 
And  we  could  at  least  succeed  in  proving  that  the  apostle  Paul 
thought  a  man  might  be  guilty  of  offences  that  were  worthy  of 
death,  and  was  willing,  if  he  were  thus  guilty,  to  submit  to  the 
penalty.  "  If,"  said  he,  "  I  have  committed  anything  worthy  of 
death,  I  refuse  not  to  die."  To  this  class  of  earnest  and  consistent 
opponents  we  would  reply  seriously  and  respectfully.  But  how 
can  we  reply  to  the  argument  against  capital  punishment,  drawn 
from  the  Christian  precepts  enjoining  a  meek  submission  to  evil, 
when  it  is  urged  by  those  who  still  contend  for  the  magistracy 
and  the  avenging  sword,  but  only  object  to  this  one  punitive 
infliction  ?  What  force  is  there  in  these  precepts  which  would 
not  tear  down  the  penitentiary  as  well  as  the  gibbet  ?  How  does 
the  command  to  love  our  enemies,  and  return  good  for  evil,  forbid 
us  to  hang  the  murderer,  if  it  permits  us  to  imprison  him  for  life  ? 
Especially,  how  can  this  be,  if  the  imprisonment  is  of  the  character 
proposed  by  this  report,  "  perpetual,  hopeless  and  laborious, 
involving  civil  death,  with  the  total  severance  of  all  the  social 
ties  that  bound  the  convicted  culprit  to  the  world — under  a  brand 
of  ignominy  and  a  ban  of  excommunication  from  his  race,  than 
which  alone  it  is  diflicult  to  imagine  a  more  fearful  doom, — a 
punishment,  the  anticipation  of  which  would  operate  as  a  far  more 
powerful  control  and  check  than  the  fear  of  a  hundred  deaths  ?" 
We  do  not  assent  to  this  relative  estimate  of  capital  punishment 
and  perpetual  imprisonment.  We  believe  death  to  be  the  severer 
and  more  fearful  doom,  and  we  have  quoted  the  above  extract 
only  to  show  how  the  reasoners  upon  the  other  side  of  the  question 
are  ready  to  blow  hot  or  cold,  as  serves  their  purpose.  But 
though  we  look  upon  death  as  the  most  dreadful  of  all  punishments, 
yet   the    difference   in   severity    between   it   and    any    proposed 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT.  359 

substitute  as  a  penalty  for  murder,  cannot  warrant  us  in  concluding 
that  under  the  mild  reign  of  Christianity,  the  ancient,  primeval  law 
has  been  repealed.  If  we  are  permitted  to  punish  at  all,  then 
where  is  our  authority  for  superseding  the  original  law  which 
exphcitly  directs  us  to  punish  the  murderer  with  death  ?  What 
right  have  we,  while  this  law  stands  uncancelled  by  the  authority 
that  gave  it,  to  pronounce  it  obsolete  and  unnecessary. 

The  indirect  influence  of  the  gospel,  instead  of  tending  to  the 
abrogation  of  this  law,  does,  in  truth,  give  to  it  new  emphasis  and 
force.  The  gospel  has  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light.  It 
has  given  distinctness  and  reality  to  those  great  moral  truths, 
which  lying  beyond  the  reach  of  sense,  and  too  apt  therefore  to 
appear  as  mere  shadowy  abstractions,  are  nevertheless  the  only 
substantial  and  abiding  verities.  It  has  thrown  a  flood  of  light 
upon  the  spiritual  nature,  the  powers,  and  responsibilities  of  man. 
It  has  revealed  enough  of  the  mystery  of  death,  to  add  to  the 
fearfulness  of  the  mystery  which  still  remains.  Above  all,  it 
has  given  us  the  highest  conception  we  can  form  of  the  dignity 
of  man,  by  revealing  to  us  the  union  of  human  nature  with  the 
divine,  and  the  high  privileges  and  blessings  which  flow  from 
this  union.  If  the  murderer  deserved  death  for  defacing  the 
image  of  God  in  man,  before  this  revelation  of  man's  true  dignity 
and  destiny  as  an  inhabitant  of  the  spiritual  universe  of  God  had 
been  distinctly  made,  then  still  more  does  he  deserve  it  now. 
The  only  reason  assigned  for  the  original  infliction  of  the 
penalty  has  derived  new  meaning  and  force  from  the  gospel  of 
Christ.  It  is  perfectly  consistent  that  an  infidel  philosophy,  as 
superficial  as  it  is  vain,  which  degrades  man  into  the  creature  of 
time  and  sense,  should  desire  the  abrogation  of  this  penalty,  since 
it  has  no  faith,  and  can  feel  no  reverence  for  the  original  reason  on 
which  it  was  founded.  But  let  men  beware  how  they  attempt  to 
degrade  the  gospel,  which,  by  giving  to  this  reason  its  fullest  and 
most  forcible  development,  adds  new  emphasis  to  the  law  which 
rests  upon  it,  into  fellowship  with  this  earthly  and  sensual  philoso- 
phy. Let  the  philosophers  of  this  school  confine  themselves  to 
their  legitimate  province.  Proceeding  upon  principles  which 
convert  the  world  into  a  mere  kitchen  and  cattle-stall,  and  man 
into  an  animal  to  be  well  fed,  clothed,  and  lodged  in  this  his  abode, 
they  may  be  competent  to  settle  wisely  and  well  some  questions 
arising  out  of  this  aspect  of  it.  But  when  they  trespass  beyond 
these,  and  attempt  to  decide  questions  that  are  connected  with 
the  spiritual  nature  and  relations  of  man,  they  should  be  rebuked 
for  venturing  upon  ground  that  lies  higher  than  their  principles. 
When  the  dimensions  of  the  human  soul  can  be  taken  by  means  of 
a  yard  measure,  we  will  admit  the  competency  of  these  men  to 
pronounce  judgment  upon  such  questions.  At  least  we  have  a 
right  to  ask  of  them,  that  they  will  leave  the  holy  gospel  to  be 
interpreted  by  those  who  have  too  deep  a  reverence  for  it,  to  per- 


mP  CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT. 

mit  them  to  draggle  it  through  the  dirty  mazes  of  insincere  and 
sophistical  argument. 

We  have  derived  new  faith  from  the  examination  of  these 
attempts  to  invalidate  the  ancient  law  of  murder.  We  find  that 
this  law,  as  given  to  Noah,  does  in  terms  too  plain  to  be  misun- 
derstood, and  too  peremptory  to  be  set  aside,  direct  that  the  mur- 
derer shall  be  put  to  death.  We  find  this  law  spreading  from 
Noah  through  Genlile  nations,  and  afterwards  incorporated  into 
the  Jewish  code.  We  find  it  surviving  the  destruction  of  th^^t 
code,  because  it  existed  before  it ;  existed  independent  of  it  among 
other  nations  while  that  code  was  yet  in  force ;  and  existed 
through  the  demands  of  nothing  peculiar  to  the  Jewish  nation,  or 
incidental  to  any  particular  form  or  state  of  human  society,  but 
for  reasons  that  are  drawn  from  the  unchanging  invariable  attri- 
butes of  humanity.  And  we  find  that  the  gospel,  so  far  from 
undermining  the  whole  foundation  on  which  this  law  rests,  only 
strengthens  and  establishes  it.  From  Calvary,  where  the  dignity 
and  importance  of  man,  as  the  child  of  God  and  the  heir  of  immor- 
tality, receive  their  fullest  illustration,  this  law  goes  forth  with 
increased  force.  Not  only  was  man  created  in  the  image  of  God, 
but  Christ  the  Son  of  God  hath  died  for  him.  Let  him  who  dares 
to  lay  the  hand  of  lawless  violence  upon  a  being  so  highly  bom, 
and  redeemed  at  so  costly  a  price, — the  depositary  of  such  myste- 
rious and  awful  interests, — undergo  the  doom  decreed  by  him  who 
alone  knows  the  value  of  life,  and  the  solemn  meaning  of  death. 

There  is  only  one  other  argument  derived  from  the  sacred 
Scriptures  against  the  lawfulness  of  capital  punishment,  which  need 
claim  our  attention.  The  impunity  of  Cain,  the  first  murderer,  is 
pleaded  in  proof  that  it  is  not  lawful  to  inflict  the  punishment  of 
death.  But  why  does  it  not  prove  equally  well,  that  it  is  not 
right  to  inflict  any  punishment,  and  that  the  murderer  should  be 
left  to  the  self-inflictions  of  his  own  conscience  ?  This  argument 
comes  with  an  ill  grace  from  those  who  contend  for  a  punishment 
which  is  represented  as  more  fearful  than  a  hundred  deaths.  Nor 
can  it  be  consistently  urged  by  any  who  regard  the  law  given  to 
Noah,  as  in  all  respects  of  the  nature  of  a  positive  institution. 
But  we  do  not  so  regard  it.  We  look  upon  this  law  as  a  re-pub- 
lication, distinct  and  unequivocal,  of  a  law  of  nature,  written  on 
the  hearts  of  men  ;  and  this  view  of  it  receives  confirmation  from 
this  very  case  of  Cain.  We  do  not  know,  we  will  not  even  attempt 
to  surmise,  why  God  saw  fit  to  interfere  to  save  the  life  of  this 
atrocious  criminal.  But  that  this  interference  was  necessary,  is 
more  for  our  argument  than  his  death  would  have  been.  Cain  felt 
that  he  deserved  to  die — he  knew  that  others  felt  so  too,  and  felt 
it  so  strongly  that  whoever  found  him  would  slay  him — and  no- 
thing less  than  a  mark,  which  could  be  recognised  as  the  sign-ma- 
nual of  the  great  Author  of  life,  was  necessary  to  protect  him  from 
the  sense  of  retributive  justice  in  the  hearts  of  those  that  then 
lived,  pronouncing  that  the  murderer  deserved  to  die.     God,  the 


] 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT.  36f' 

sovereign  law-giver,  had  an  undoubted  right  to  dispense  with  the 
penalty  of  this  law,  in  that  or  any  other  case.  And  whenever  by 
any  similar  intervention  now,  he  sets  upon  a  criminal  a  mark,  sig- 
nificant of  His  will  that  the  destroying  sword  of  justice  should  pass 
him  by,  there  will  be  none  to  question  or  murmur.  The  only 
inference  that  we  are  warranted  in  drawing  from  this  case,  is,  that 
the  sense  of  justice  which  demands  the  death  of  the  murderer 
should  always  pause  and  stay  its  hand,  whenever  God  makes 
known  His  will  to  that  effect. 

Here  we  might  rest  our  argument.  Having  shown  that  He  who 
holds  in  his  hand  the  issues  of  life  and  death,  has  revealed  to  us 
his  will  respecting  the  punishment  of  murder,  we  might,  without 
incivility,  decline  to  pursue  the  inquiry  upon  other  grounds.  If  the 
divine  justice,  from  which  human  justice  takes  its  origin  and  derives 
all  its  force,  has  decided  this  question,  we  may  rightly  call  upon 
men  to  submit  to  its  decision.  But  we  have  no  fear  of  the  result 
of  the  most  rigid  scrutiny  of  reason  into  this  divine  decree  ;  and 
we  propose  briefly  to  exhibit  the  grounds  of  our  belief  in  the 
agreement  of  the  law  of  nature  with  the  law  of  revelation  respect- 
ing the  punishment  of  murder. 

Here  we  are  compelled  at  once  to  join  issue  with  the  opponents 
of  capital  punishment,  and  with  some  too  upon  our  own  side  of 
the  question,  respecting  the  true  ends  of  the  penal  sanctions  which 
accompany  human  law.     Mr.  O'Sulllvan  contends  that  the  only 
legitimate  end  of  punishment  is  the  prevention  of  crime.     And  in 
a  recent  sermon  in  favour  of  capital  punishment,  it  is  admitted 
"  that  this  is  unquestionably  the  true  doctrine,  for  it  is  the  principle 
upon  which  God  the  only  supreme  and  infallible  law-giver  pro- 
ceeds."    And  carrying  out  the  same  idea,  the  author  adds,  that 
when  "  the  strong  arm  of  the  law  seizes  upon  the  murderer  and 
puts  him  to  death,  it  designs  to  operate  upon  the  living  and  to  pre- 
vent the  repetition  of  the  like  crime."     That  this  is  one  of  the 
ends  of  punishment  no  man  can  deny,  but  that  it  is  the  sole  end 
will  scarcely  be  maintained  by  any  one  who  has  reflected  deeply 
upon  the  question,  or  analysed  carefully  the  operations  of  his  own 
mind.     If  the  prevention  of  crime  be  the  only  lawful  end  of  penal 
sanctions,  then  the  efficacy  of  any  proposed  penalty  as  a  restraint 
upon  the  perpetration  of  offences  is  the  test  of  our  right  to  inflict 
it.     It  is  right,  under  this  view  of  the  case,  to  fine  a  man,  to  impri- 
son or  to  hang  him,  if  we  have  sufficient  reason  to  believe  that  we 
may  thereby  produce  a  certain  amount  of  good  to  the  community, 
in  the  restraint  imposed  upon  the  commission  of  crime.     Let  us 
suppose  then  that  the  infliction  of  this  doom,  whatever  it  may  be, 
upon  an  innocent  man  would  prevent  an  equal  amount  of  crime, 
would  it  be  right  to  lay  it  upon  him  ?     Could  it  be  certainly  known 
that  the  hanging  of  some  man,  whose  hands  are  pure  from  crime, 
would  prevent  all  future  murders  to  the  end  of  time,  would  it  be 
right  to  put  him  to  a  violent  death  for  the  good  of  his  race  ?   What 
right  have  we  to  take  any  man  and  torture  him  merely  for  the 


CAPITAL   PUNISHMENT. 


sake  of  doing  good  to  others  ?     We  have  often  doubted  whether 
the  English  judge,  who,  in  pronouncing  sentence  upon  a  convicted 
horse-thief,  said,  "  You  are  hung,  not  because  you  stole  a  horse, 
but  that  horses  may  not  be  stolen,"  if  there  had   been  no  real 
grounds  for  his  sentence  better  than  the  avowed  one,  would  not 
himself  have  been  guilty  of  a  much  higher  crime  than  the  culprit 
before  him  had  committed.     What  right  have  we  to  catch  a  man 
and  hang  him  up,  because  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  he  will 
prove  a  scarecrow  to  frighten  other  men  from  mischief?     We  can 
have  no  right  except  that  which  is  derived  from  what  this  theory 
leaves  altogether  out  of  view,  the  intrinsic  ill  desert  of  the  offender. 
The  foundation  of  human  punishments  can  never  be  laid,  by  any 
just  principles  of  reasoning,  in  their  tendency  to  benefit  society. 
This  attempt  to  found  justice  upon  utility  is  only  another  effort  of 
a  low  material  philosophy,  seeking  to  solve  a  problem  that  lies  as 
high  above  its  reach  as  the  heavens  are  high  above  the  earth. 
The  idea  of  law  is  in  every  human  mind,  ignorant  or  instructed, 
an  immediate  derivative  from  the  idea  of  duty ;  and  ihis  again 
arises  at  once  out  of  the  primary  conception  which  all  men  form 
of  the  essential  distinction  between  right  and  wrong.     These  ideas 
are  the  product  of  the  reason  and  conscience.    They  are  primitive, 
necessary,  and  absolute.     That  the  criminal  should  be  punished  for 
his  crime  is  not  a  truth  summed   up  from  the  tardy  teachings  of 
experience,  it  is  an  immediate  and  peremptory  decision  of  the  moral 
sense.    Whether  punishment  is  useful  to  society  or  not,  is  altogether 
a  different  question,  and  to  be  decided  upon  different  grounds.  The 
positive  penal  laws,  by  which  we  punish  crimes  that  trespass  upon 
the  rights  of  men  and  violate  social  order,  have  their  origin  in  that 
sense  of  justice  which  is  one  of  the  spontaneous  products  of  human 
reason.     No  social  compact  could  ever  give  this  right,  no  con- 
siderations of  utility  could  ever  establish  it,  if  the  ground  were  not 
laid  for  it  in  the  moral  nature  of  man.     There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  it  is  useful  to  society  to  punish  offences  which  invade  its  peace 
and  order,  and  that  the  consideration  of  this  utility  is  real  and 
weighty.     But  this  consideration  is  subordinate  to  the  primitive 
idea  which  constitutes  the  true  basis  of  penalty.     Let  us  sup- 
pose that  this  primitive  idea  is  removed,  that  there  is  no  law  of 
the  human  mind  by  which  it  pronounces  upon  the  essential  deme- 
rit of  crime,  and  demands  that  its  decision  shall  be  realized  in 
every  well  ordered  society;  and  what  becomes  of  our  right  to  seize 
upon  a  man  and  subject  him  to  disgrace  and  suffermg,  because  his 
tortures  will  be  an  edifying  spectacle  to  others?     No  exigency  of 
local  or  state  affairs,  no  extremity  of  public  necessity,  no  amount 
of  good  to  be  produced,  can  ever  make  such  an  intrusion  upon 
the  sacred  rights  which  belong  to  every  man,  anything  else  than 
an  unauthorized  and  atrocious  exertion  of  power.     Nothing  but 
guilt  can   break  down  the  defences  which  stand  around  every 
moral   being,  and  permit  us  to  subject  him  to  suffering  for  the 
advantage  of  others.     It  is  from  this  prior  consideration  of  justice 


J 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT.  36S 

that  the  penalties  of  law  derive  their  utility.  It  is  because  the 
community  feel  that  the  criminal  deserves  to  suffer,  that  the  exam- 
ple of  his  punishment  is  rendered  powerful  in  restraining  others 
from  crime,  beyond  the  efficacy  which  fear  alone  would  possess. 
Punishment  is  not  just  because  it  is  useful ;  but  it  is  useful  because 
it  is  just. 

The  penalties  inflicted  by  human  law,  having  their  foundation  in 
the  intrinsic  ill-desert  of  crime,  are  in  their  nature  vindictive  as  well 
as  corrective ;  and  hence  there  are  two  questions  to  be  settled,  in 
adjusting  any  penalty ;  does  the  offence  deserve  the  proposed 
punishment ;  and,  does  the  public  good  require  it?  It  is  not  neces- 
sary for  our  present  purpose  that  we  should  pursue  the  inquiry 
into  the  relative  weight  to  be  allowed  to  these  two  considerations, 
since  they  both  combine  in  their  fullest  force  to  sanction,  and 
indeed  to  demand  death  as  the  punishment  of  murder. 

Beyond  all  question  the  murderer  deserves  to  die.  His  crime  is 
the  greatest  that  man  can  commit  against  his  fellow  man.  There 
is  no  other  outrage  which  approaches  it  in  atrocity — there  is  none 
other  like  unto  it.  It  not  only  stands  alone,  but  it  is  separated,  by 
an  incomprehensible  interval,  from  every  other  crime.  Other 
injuries  lie  within  the  reach  of  our  understanding.  They  do  not 
surpass  the  limits  of  our  experience,  and  we  know  how  to  form 
some  estimate  of  their  enormity.  We  sustain  ourselves  in  pros- 
pect of  other  evils  to  come  upon  us,  by  the  thought  that  other  men 
have  endured  these  same  evils,  and  yet  lived  through  them.  Any- 
thing less  than  death  we  can  comprehend.  But  between  all  else 
that  men  have  borne,  and  death,  there  lies  we  know  not  what 
interval.  None  of  us  have  yet  died, — and  we  know  not  what  it 
is  to  die.  We  can  form  our  estimate  of  the  pain  of  body  and  the 
strugglings  of  the  spirit,  which  precede  it, — but  what  is  death 
itself?  Who  shall  tell  us  what  is  going  on  within  the  yet  breathing 
body  at  that  last  moment, — how  snaps  the  thread  of  life — what 
sensations  attend  the  breaking  of  the  bond  that  unites  soul  and 
body — what  strange  scenes  surround  the  disembodied  spirit.  We 
speak  not  now  of  the  injury  which  the  murderer  does  to  the  pub- 
lic by  the  destruction  of  a  valuable  member  of  society — nor  of  the 
indescribable  agony  inflicted  upon  the  domestic  circle  bereaved,  in 
the  most  horrible  manner,  of  one  of  its  inmates ; — we  enter  into 
no  calculation  of  the  general  consequences  of  this  crime.  We 
speak  of  it  as  it  is  in  itself,  a  crime  that  stands  alone  in  atrocity, 
unequalled  and  unapproached.  Every  murderer,  however  extenu- 
ated his  crime  may  be,  has  done  a  deed  of  which  he  nor  any  other 
man  comprehends  the  full  enormity.  It  is  right  then  that  this  deed 
should  receive  the  severest  doom  that  human  justice  has  the 
authority  to  inflict.  It  is  right  that  a  crime  of  such  paramount 
guilt,  should  incur  an  extreme  and  distinctive  punishment.  Our 
natural  sentiment  of  justice,  of  its  own  accord,  proclaims  the  law, 
Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed. 

Such  has  been  the  voice  of  the  public  conscience  in  all  ages. 


364  CAPITAL   PUNISHMENT. 

Cain  felt  that  he  was  in  danger  of  death  from  the  hand  of  any  one 
that  might  find  him.  Among  all  nations  and  tribes  of  people, 
civilized  or  savage,  Christian  or  pagan,  justice  has  ever  demanded 
blood  for  blood.  The  general  conscience  of  the  human  race  has 
taught  the  truth  and  justice  of  the  sentiment  expressed  by  a  Ro- 
man poet, 

"Neqiie  enim  lex  aequior  ulla, 
Quam  necis  artifices  arte  perire  sua." 

From  the  infancy  of  the  human  race  there  comes  down  to  us 
an  unbroken  line  of  testimony,  delivering  it  as  the  universal  judg- 
ment of  mankind,  that  the  murderer  should  be  put  to  death. 

Here  we  may  be  met  with  the  argument,  that  it  is  impossible  to 
prove,  from  the  light  of  nature,  that  human  society  possesses  the 
right  to  take  away  life.  This  argument  is  presented  by  Mr. 
O'Sullivan,  as  one  which  may  have  influence  on  some  minds 
though  he  himself  admits  its  unsoundness ;  conceding  expressly  that 
society  may  lawfully  punish  with  death^  and  yet  giving  the  argu- 
ment on  the  other  side  to  catch  such  minds  as  can  be  taken  in  by 
it;  another  illustration  of  the  per  fas  aut  nefas  kind  of  reasoning  of 
which  we  have  already  given  so  many  specimens.  Mr.  Rantoul 
presents  the  same  argument  at  still  greater  length,  though  he  also 
prudently  reserves  the  expression  of  his  own  opinion  of  its  valid- 
ity— but  he  gives  it  to  pass  for  what  it  is  worth.  These  argu- 
ments against  the  right  of  society  to  take  away  life  are  all  of  them 
at  bottom  nothing  more  than  the  well  known  sophism  of  the  Mar- 
quis Beccaria.  It  is  in  substance  this — '*  Human  society  is  the 
result  of  a  compact  in  which  each  individual  surrenders  to  the 
state  the  smallest  possible  portion  of  his  personal  rights,  that  he 
may  securely  possess  the  remainder.  The  state  therefore  can 
have  no  right  over  the  life  of  a  citizen,  since  we  may  be  sure  that 
this  is  a  right  that  he  has  never  parted  with.  Besides,  no  man  has 
a  right  to  take  away  his  own  life,  and  therefore,  could  not,  if  he 
wished,  give  any  such  right  to  another."  A  full  and  complete 
answer  to  this  subtle  sophism  would  be  given  by  a  correct  exposi- 
tion of  the  origin  of  human  society,  and  the  source  from  which  the 
state  derives  its  authority  to  institute  laws  for  the  government  of 
its  subjects.  The  right  to  establish  municipal  regulations  may,  for 
aught  we  know,  be  limited  by  a  compact  express  or  implied,  real 
or  fictitious — but  in  every  state  the  sovereign  authority  possesses  a 
right  to  enact  laws  embodying  the  essential  ideas  of  justice,  that 
is  dependent  upon  the  terms  of  no  social  compact,  and  subject  to 
none  of  its  limitations.  Its  true  source  is  in  the  ideas  and  laws 
given  to  us  by  the  moral  nature  of  man.  It  would  not  be  diflicult, 
had  we  space  for  it,  to  develope  this  theory,  and  show  that  it  involves 
of  necessity  the  right  for  which  we  contend. 

But,  setting  this  aside,  the  authority  of  the  state  to  take  away, 
life,  may  be  derived  from  the  natural  right  of  self-defence  whicff' 
is  inherent  in  communities  as  well  as  in  individuals.     And  it  is  fur- 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT.  365 

ther  sufficiently  proved  by  the  universal  consent  of  mankind. 
When  a  plain  question  of  right  and  wrong  has  been  submitted  to 
the  conscience  of  men,  and  the  same  response  has  been  returned 
by  all  men  in  all  ages,  we  cannot  doubt  its  correctness.  We 
question  whether  any  truth  has  been  sustained  by  a  more  unani- 
mous consent  of  mankind,  than  the  right  of  society  to  punish  the 
murderer  with  death. 

The  murderer  deserves  to  die — such  is  the  sentence  that  reason 
pronounces,  in  view  of  the  enormity  of  his  crime,  and  such  has 
been  the  unvarying  judgment  of  the  conscience  of  humanity. 
Society  possesses  the  right  to  inflict  this  deserved  punishment  upon 
him — such  is  the  necessary  conclusion  of  an  inquiry,  properly  con- 
ducted, into  the  derivation  and  nature  of  the  authority  inherent  in 
the  state,  and  such  again  has  been  the  universal  decision  of  human 
reason.  But  is  it  expedient  for  society  to  exercise  this  right? 
This  is  the  only  remaining  inquiry. 

The  point  upon  which  the  determination  of  this  question  rests 
is,  whether  the  punishment  of  death  operates  with  greater  efficacy, 
than  any  proposed  substitute,  to  restrain  the  crime.  The  other 
considerations  which  arise  in  connexion  with  the  inquiry  into  the 
expediency  of  capital  punishment,  are  all  subordinate  to  the  main 
one,  touching  its  efficacy  for  the  prevention  of  murder.  And  so 
far  as  this  main  consideration  depends  upon  abstract  reasoning, 
the  principles  which  govern  it  are  simple  and  obvious. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  that,  other  things  being  equal,  any  penalty, 
provided  it  does  not  exceed  what  the  moral  sense  deems  a  right- 
eous retribution  for  the  offence  committed,  will  be  efficacious  in 
proportion  to  its  severity.  And  of  the  comparative  severity  of 
different  punishments,  every  man  may  at  once  form  his  estimate 
by  askmg  of  his  own  heart,  which  he  would  most  dread ;  or  by 
looking  abroad  and  judging,  from  the  general  sentiments  and  con- 
duct of  man,  which  is  suited  to  inspire  the  most  fear.  There  are 
excTipt  cases.  There  are  men  who  fear  disgrace  more  than  death. 
There  have  been  men  who  have  desired  death  as  a  relief  from 
their  burdens,  being  willing  to  fly  from  ills  they  had,  to  others  that 
they  know  not  of.  It  is  true  that  there  is  scarcely  a  passion  of 
the  human  heart,  that  may  not,  under  some  special  and  rare 
excitement,  gain  such  head  as  "  to  mate  and  master  the  fear  of 
death."  But  these  are  paroxysms  which  only  briefly  and  occasion- 
ally disturb  the  usual  judgments  of  the  mind,  and  which  always  give 
way  to  any  influence  that  recalls  its  habitual  modes  of  thought  and 
feeling.  We  knew  a  man  who,  intent  upon  suicide,  had  actually 
raised  the  deadly  weapon  to  inflict  it,  when  his  hand  was  stayed 
and  an  entire  revulsion  of  feeling  produced,  simply  by  the  bleating 
of  a  lamb  that  had  strayed  by  his  side.  And  we  have  read  of 
one,  who,  being  met  while  on  his  way  to  destroy  himself,  by  a 
man  who  threatened  his  life,  was  affi-ighted  and  fled,  his  habitual 
fear  of  death  overmastering  his  determination  to  rush  upon  it. 
Of  all  natural  evils,  death  is  that  which  takes  the  strongest  hold 


366  CAPITAL   PUNISHMENT. 

upon  the  imagination  of  men,  and  inspires  them  with  the  deepest 
and  most  prevalent  fear.  It  is  not  Hke  other  evils,  that  we  can 
handle,  measure,  and  calculate, — it  is  dark  and  mysterious,  con- 
founding the  sense,  perplexing  the  understanding,  puzzling  the 
will,  and  thus  exercising  over  us  the  power  of  awakening  intense 
emotion,  which  must  of  necessity  belong  to  that,  which  we  see 
and  dread,  but  which  is  so  vague  and  vast  that  we  cannot  discern 
the  form  thereof.  We  are  subject  to  other  terrors,  but  this  is  the 
king  of  terrors.     All  that  a  man  hath  will  he  give  for  his  life. 

It  is  of  no  weight  to  tell  us  that  this  fear  belongs  to  thoughtful 
and  cultivated  minds,  rather  than  to  the  degraded  and  brutish  class, 
who  are  most  frequently  the  perpetrators  of  murder.  If  there  be 
a  man  who  has  sunk  so  low  in  brutishness  that  he  has  lost  in  con- 
siderable measure,  the  fear  of  death,  he  will  be  still  more  insensi- 
ble to  any  other  fear.  What  to  him  are  the  disgrace,  the  igno- 
miny, the  ban  of  excommunication,  the  severance  of  social  ties, 
involved  in  imprisonment  for  life.  If  he  has  sunk  below  the  fear 
of  death,  the  penitentiary  will  be  to  him  only  an  asylum,  where  he 
will  be  sure  of  being  fed  and  clothed.  When  was  it  ever  heard 
that  a  criminal  desired  his  counsel  to  strain  a  case  of  manslaughter 
into  murder,  that  he  might  be  put  to  death  rather  than  incarcerated 
for  life  ?  What  convicted  culprit  would  not  struggle  for  his  life 
and  call  for  help,  against  the  avenger  of  blood  who  should  waylay 
and  attack  him  on  his  way  to  the  penitentiary  ?  Let  men  exercise 
their  ingenuity  as  much  as  they  please,  in  reasoning  from  abnor- 
mal freaks  of  the  human  mind,  let  them  quote  as  many  instances 
as  there  have  been  executions,  of  murders  perpetrated  in  sight  of 
the  scaffold,  it  still  remains  a  notorious  truth,  open  and  palpable  as 
a  thing  of  sense,  that  men  dread  death  more  than  any  other  natu- 
ral evil.  It  is  therefore  clear  that  it  must  possess  a  greater  intrin* 
sic  efficacy,  as  a  punishment  for  murder,  than  the  proposed  substi- 
tute. 

But  this  efficacy,  it  is  urged,  is  lessened  by  the  uncertainty  of 
conviction.  There  are  in  every  community  some  men  who  disbe- 
lieve or  doubt  the  right  to  inflict  capital  punishment,  and  others 
who  question  its  expediency,  and  as  strenuous  efforts  are  always 
made  to  get  one  or  more  of  such  men  on  the  jury,  the  doubt  of  his 
conviction  if  brought  to  trial,  combines  with  the  chance  of  his 
escaping  detection,  to  embolden  the  criminal  in  the  execution  of  his 
purpose.  The  unsoundness  of  this  reasoning  in  its  application  to 
our  case,  is  at  once  detected,  when  we  call  to  mind  that  in  most  of 
our  states,  murder  has  been  changed  from  a  common-law,  to  a  sta- 
tutory offence,  and  that  the  statute,  discriminating  between  murder 
of  three  or  four  different  degrees,  affixes  death  as  the  penalty  of 
the  first,  imprisonment  for  life  of  the  second,  and  so  on.  The  jury, 
empanelled  for  the  trial  of  murder,  are  not  charged  to  find  the 
prisoner  absolutely  guilty  or  not  guilty,  but  it  falls  within  their  pro- 
vince to  find,  if  guilty,  within  what  degree  he  is  guilty.  The 
scruples  therefore  arising  from  a  conviction  of  the  unlawfulness,  or 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT.  367 

a  sense  of  the  horror  of  capital  punishment,  need  not  operate  in 
any  case  to  lessen  the  doom  of  the  culprit  below  that  which  it  is 
proposed  to  inflict  in  all  cases.  The  only  effect  of  these  scruples 
where  they  exist  and  govern  the  decision  of  the  jury,  will  be  to 
make  them  render  a  verdict  of  guilty  of  murder  in  the  second 
degree,  instead  of  the  first,  and  this  is  already,  or  if  not  it  may  be 
made  so,  punishable  with  the  next  heaviest  sentence  to  death. 

We  recur  therefore  to  the  evident  truth,  that  death  is  the  fitting 
penalty  for  murder, — fitting  because,  in  addition  to  its  correspond- 
ence with  the  enormity  of  the  crime,  it  must  needs  be  more  effica- 
cious than  any  other  in  preventing  its  repetition.  We  have  indeed, 
besides  the  reason  which  we  have  just  shown  to  be  utterly  devoid 
of  weight,  a  historical  argument  in  disparagement  of  the  efficacy 
of  capital  punishment.  This  argument  is  a  curiosity  in  its  way. 
Reflecting  and  thoughtful  men,  who  love  and  seek  the  truth,  will 
always  be  cautious  in  establishing  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect 
between  consecutive  historical  events.  The  most  laborious  collec- 
tion and  collation  of  facts,  and  the  most  intimate  acquaintance  with 
all  the  circumstances  aflfecting  the  result,  are  in  most  cases  neces- 
sary, to  enable  us  to  eliminate  what  is  accidental,  and  discover  the 
true  connecting  link.  But  with  Mr.  O'SuIlivan  the  simple  principle 
"post  hoc,  propter  hoc^'  cuts  short  all  this  labour.  One  thing  pre- 
cedes another,  therefore  it  is  the  cause  of  it.  Under  the  Roman 
republic  there  was  no  capital  punishment,  and  the  state  was  flou- 
rishing ;  under  the  empire  capital  punishments  were  inflicted,  and 
the  state  fell.  No  better  illustration  is  needed  of  the  rashness  of 
this  kind  of  reasoning,  than  is  aflforded  by  the  uncertainty  which 
still  exists  respecting  the  effect  of  the  change  made  several  years 
since  in  the  English  criminal  code.  There  were  strong  arguments 
against  that  code  as  it  formerly  stood,  and  at  length  upwards  of 
two  hundred  minor  offences  were  taken  out  of  the  list  of  capital 
crimes.  And  many  who  were  in  favour  of  the  reform  have  thought 
and  said  that  the  effect  of  it  has  been,  a  diminution  of  crime.  But 
from  full  and  accurate  statistical  tables,  kept  at  the  Home  Office 
and  reported  to  Parliament,  it  appears  that  for  the  three  years  suc- 
ceeding the  change  in  the  criminal  law,  there  was  an  increase  of 
no  less  than  thirty-eight  per  cent,  in  the  offences  from  which  the 
punishment  of  death  had  been  removed.  We  should  be  very  loth 
however  to  infer  from  this  fact  the  relation  of  cause  and  efllect,  as 
Mr.  O'SuIlivan  is  in  the  habit  of  doing  upon  grounds  vastly  more 
vague  and  indecisive. 

But  a  further  difficulty  with  this  historical  argument  is  that  the 
facts  themselves  upon  which  it  rests  are,  most  of  them,  unworthy 
of  credit.  In  the  first  instance,  we  have  the  experience  of  ancient 
Egypt  under  Sabaco,  who  during  the  space  of  fifty  years,  we  are 
told,  abolished  capital  punishment,  and  with  much  success. 
Whence  Mr.  O'SuIlivan  learned  the  success  of  Sabaco's  experi- 
ment, we  do  not  know.  It  is  true  that  Herodotus  and  Diodorus 
both  mention  this  monarch,  and  state  that  he  refrained  from  pun- 


368  CAPITAL   PUNISHMENT. 

ishing  criminals  with  death,  but  condemned  them  to  raise  the 
ground  about  the  towns  so  as  to  place  them  above  the  reach  of 
inundation.  But  we  do  not  remember  that  either  of  them  has  said 
aught  of  the  good  or  ill  effect  of  the  experiment.  And  if  they  had, 
it  would  not  be  difficult  to  tell  what  weight  ought  to  be  attached 
to  the  testimony,  when  we  consider  that  the  eldest  of  these  histo- 
rians was  separated  by  an  interval  of  at  least  three  hundred  years 
from  the  reign  of  Sabaco,  and  that  no  statistical  tables,  official 
returns,  or  other  means  of  accurate  information,  had  been  trans- 
mitted down  to  him.  Mr.  O'Sullivan,  too,  should  have  inquired 
enough,  before  using  this  alleged  fact,  rude  as  it  is,  for  his  purpose, 
to  ascertain  that  Sabaco's  character,  his  doings,  and  the  length  of 
his  reign,  are  all  involved  in  doubt.  Herodotus's  own  account  is 
not  consistent  with  itself:  and  Manetho  informs  us  that  he  burnt 
one  man  alive  ;  and  limits  his  reign  to  eight  years. 

The  example  of  Rome  is  also  adduced  in  illustration  of  the  good 
effects  to  be  expected  from  a  repeal  of  capital  punishment.  For  a 
period  of  two  centuries  and  a  half,  we  are  told,  that  the  infliction 
of  death  upon  a  Roman  citizen  was  expressly  forbidden  by  the 
famous  Porcian  law,  which  was  passed  in  the  454th  year  of  Rome. 
To  say  nothing  of  the  trifling  error  of  more  than  a  hundred  years 
in  the  date  of  this  "  famous  Porcian  law,"  which  was  not  enacted 
until  the  557lh  year  of  Rome — was  the  author  of  this  report  aware 
that  this  Porcian  law  was  but  a  revival  of  the  Valerian  law,  which 
had  been  already  renewed  twice  before,  once  by  Valerius  Publi- 
cola,  and  again  by  Valerius  Corvus  ;  and  that  after  its  revival 
under  the  tribuneship  of  M.  Porcius  Lecca  it  became  obsolete  again, 
and  was  subsequently  renewed  for  the  fourth  time  by  Sempronius 
Gracchus,  after  which  it  fell  again  into  disuse, — and  that  of  course 
the  administration  of  criminal  justice  at  Rome  was  never  for  any 
considerable  period  restrained  by  the  limitation  of  this  law  ?  Does 
he  know,  too,  that  those  who  are  most  competent  to  form  a  cor- 
rect opinion  upon  the  subject,  suppose  that  the  law,  while  in  force, 
only  forbade  the  execution  of  a  Roman  citizen  who  had  been  con- 
demned by  a  magistrate,  and  that  it  was  not  intended  to  apply  to 
such  as  had  been  cast  in  an  appeal  from  his  sentence  ?  If  he  did 
not  know  these  things,  we  hope  he  will  look  beyond  Adam's 
Roman  Antiquities,  to  which  he  refers  us  for  information,  before 
he  again  undertakes  to  shed  light  upon  our  path  from  the  history 
of  Rome. 

But  we  have  more  history  still.  "  The  Empress  Elizabeth  of 
Russia,  on  ascending  the  throne,  pledged  herself  never  to  inflict 
the  punishment  of  death ;  and  throughout  her  reign,  twenty  years, 
she  kept  the  noble  pledge."  We  know  that  Elizabeth  made  this 
pledge,  but  where  did  Mr.  O'Sullivan  learn  that  she  kept  it  ?  We 
have  never  met  with  any  authority  for  it  but  Voltaire,  who  says 
"  she  kept  her  word ;"  but  a  man  who  never  kept  his  own  word, 
when  it  suited  his  purpose  to  break  it,  is  not  an  unexceptionable 
witness  on  behalf  of  others.     It  is  well  known  now,  that  many 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT.  369 

executions  occurred  under  the  reign  of  this  Empress — we  do  not 
know  how  many,  for  despotic  governments  publish  no  registers  of 
the  deaths  they  inflict.  Mr.  O'SulUvan  adds,  that  so  satisfactory 
was  found  the  operation  of  the  immunity  from  death  by  judicial 
sentence,  that  Elizabeth's  successor,  "  the  great  Catharine,  adopted 
it  into  her  celebrated  Code  of  Laws,  with  the  exception  of  very 
rare  cases  of  offence  against  the  state."  From  that  day  to  this,  he 
informs  us,  there  have  been  but  two  occasions  on  which  the  punish- 
ment of  death  has  been  inflicted  in  Russia.  The  code  of  Catharine 
does  indeed  breathe  a  spirit  of  clemency,  but  a  clemency  that  extends 
only^o  the  expiation  of  wrongs  committed  by  one  of  her  subjects 
against  another.  To  hold  such  wrongs  in  light  esteem,  and  make 
them  easy  of  atonement,  may  well  consist  with  the  policy  of  a  des- 
potic government.  Her  royal  clemency  indicates  an  indifference  to 
human  life  instead  of  a  high  regard  for  it.  Whoever  will  take  the  pains 
to  compare  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Beccaria's  work  on  Punishment, 
with  sect.  4,  art.  10,  of  the  Instructions  of  Catharine,  will  be  at  no 
loss  to  discover  the  probable  motives  which  led  to  the  institution 
of  her  Criminal  Code.  She  has  borrowed  the  ideas,  and  some- 
times the  very  words  of  Beccaria,  taking  good  care,  however,  to 
leave  out  everything  touching  the  social  compact,  the  surrender  of 
the  "  minime  porzioni  "  of  personal  rights,  and  the  limitations  of  the 
sovereign  authority. 

'     The  work  of  Beccaria  had  been  recently  published,  and  was 
attracting  much  attention.     Its  doctrines  had  been  espoused  by 
the  French  school  of  Infidels,  who  were  at  that  time  the  savans 
of  Europe.     Catharine,  who  was  in  close    correspondence  with 
them,  was  ambitious   of  establishing  a  reputation  in  philosophy, 
as  well  as  war ;  and,   to  this  end,  she  issued   her  "  Instructions 
pour  dresser  la  Code  de  Russie,"  in  which  she  is  philosophically 
clement,  so  far  as  the  punishment  of  wrongs  between  man  and 
man  is  concerned,  but  sufficiently  rigid  in  stationing  the  ministers 
of  death  around  the  throne,     li  this  explanation  is  more  uncha- 
ritable than  Mr.  O'Sullivan's,  it   has   the   merit  of  being   more 
consistent  with  the  known  character  of  this    Empress, — one   of 
the  most  abandoned  sovereigns  that  ever  disgraced  the  seat  of 
empire.     She   commenced   her    reign  with   the   murder   of  her 
husband  and  his  nephew,  and  filled  it  up  with  acts  too  abominable 
to  be  recited.     But  whatever  may  have  been  the  motives  which 
dictated  her  code,  who,  besides  Mr.  O'Sullivan,  will  vouch  for  its 
observance?     The  edicts  of  despotic  sovereigns  are  one  thing, 
and  their  practice  another.     The  same  caprice  which  enacted  the 
law  can  at  any  time  dispense  with  its  execution ;  and  there  is 
nothing  in  the  character  of  Catharine  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that  she 
would  esteem  herself  bound  by  the  philosophical  flourish  of  her 
"  Instructions ;"  nor  are  there  any  sources    of  information  from 
which  we  can  learn  whether  justice  was  actually  administered 
in  accordance  with   the    criminal   code   which    she  established. 
And  how  did  Mr.  O'Sullivan  arrive  at  the  knowledge  of  the  fact 

24 


370  CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT. 

that  "  from  that  day  to  the  present  there  have  been  but  two 
occasions  on  which  tKe  punishment  of  death  has  been  inflicted  in 
Russia."  It  is  now  eighty  years  since  Catharine  ascended  the 
throne.  It  would  not  be  an  easy  matter  to  ascertain  in  our  own 
free  country,  or  in  England,  how  many  executions  have  taken 
place  in  the  last  eighty  years.  And  who  has  kept  statistical  tables 
and  brought  in  reports  of  the  sentences  pronounced  and  executed 
throughout  the  fifty  provinces  of  the  vast  empire  of  Russia  during 
this  period  ?  Travellers  tell  us  that  the  code  of  Catharine  fell,  long 
since,  into  disuse.  And  while  in  force  it  only  nominally  exempted 
the  criminal  from  death  ;  since  death,  in  an  aggravated  form,  was 
the  frequent  result  of  the  punishments  it  prescribed.  We  have 
before  us  now  an  account,  from  an  eye-witness,  of  the  punishment 
of  a  murderer  by  the  knout,  which  is  too  horrible  to  be  quoted 
in  full.  The  criminal  received  three  hundred  and  thirty-three 
blows,  each  one  tearing  away  the  skin  to  the  breadth  of  the  thong, 
and  sinking  into  the  flesh.  At  the  conclusion  of  this  terrible 
operation  his  nostrils  were  torn  with  pincers,  and  his  face 
branded  with  a  red  hot  iron.  He  was  then  re-conducted  to  his 
prison,  to  be  transported  to  the  mines  in  Siberia ;  but  upon  the 
most  diligent  inquiry,  it  could  not  be  ascertained  that  any  one  had 
seen  him  afterwards  brought  out  of  his  prison.  But  let  all  this 
pass.  Be  it  so,  that  no  capital  punishments  have  been  inflicted  in 
Russia  for  the  last  eighty  years.  How  are  we  to  learn  the  effects 
of  this  remission  ?  Who  can  tell  us  whether  the  lives  of  men  have 
been  safe  under  this  system  of  indulgence  to  crime  ?  Where  is  the 
record  of  the  number  of  murders  committed  during  this  period? 
And  where  is  the  proof  that  they  would  not  have  been  fewer, 
if  even-handed  justice  had  dealt  to  the  murderer  his  merited 
doom  ?  The  argument  from  this  case  breaks  down  at  every  point. 
That  cause  must  be  sadly  in  want  of  substantial  support,  which  is 
compelled  thus  to  clutch  at  shadows. 

We  had  intended  to  make  a  similar  exposure  of  all  the  other 
historical  cases  referred  to  in  this  Report.  But  our  limits  forbid, 
and  we  have  already  devoted  to  this  part  of  the  argument  more 
space  than  it  intrinsically  deserves.  The  cases  given  may  be 
taken  as  a  sample  of  the  whole, — erroneous  frequently  in  their 
facts,  and  wrong  always  in  the  conclusions  drawn  from  them, 
supposing  the  facts  themselves  to  be  correct.  And  such  must 
be  the  end  of  every  attempt  to  establish  by  historical  induction, 
the  truth  of  that  which  is  not,  and  cannot  be  true.  This  part  of  the 
discussion  is  a  waste  of  words.  If  a  man  should  ofl!er  to  prove  to 
us  from  history  that  the  best  interests  of  every  state  would  be  pro- 
moted by  committing  its  sovereign  authority  to  the  hands  of  a  cruel 
and  unprincipled  despot,  we  might  very  properly  decline  to  follow 
such  an  argument,  on  a  question  that  is  already  decided,  upon  princi- 
ples that  are  plainer  and  more  certain  than  any  process  of  reasoning 
from  historical  facts  can  possibly  be.  And  yet  we  will  engage  to 
make  a  collection  of  facts  which  shall  go  further  in  support  of  this 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT.  371 

theory,  than  any  that  can  be  marshalled  in  favour  of  the  abolition 
of  capital  punishment.     The  considerations  which  determine  that 
death  is  a  more  effectual  preventive  of  murder  than  any  less  punish- 
ment, are  superior,  in  their  simplicity  and  certainty,  to  all  historical 
teaching.     They  lie  in  every  man's  bosom,  and  close  around  him. 
He  need  not  go  back  to  ancient  Egypt,  nor  search  abroad  among 
the  scarce  civilized  serfs  of  Russia,  to  find  them.     Let  any  man 
ask  himself  which  he  would  most  dread,  death  or  imprisonment, 
taking  his  answer  not  from  any  casual  mood  of  mind  which  may 
now  and  then  rule  him,  but  from  his  most  habitual  and  prompt  fears : 
let  him  ask  any  criminal  upon  trial,  which  he  would  prefer,  a 
verdict  which  would  send  him  to  the  gallows,  or  one  which  would 
permit  him  to  take  refuge  in  the  penitentiary.     Can  there  be  any 
doubt  that  death  is  the  master  evil  of  our  lot — that  it  is  the  sorest 
punishment  that  human  law  has  the  right  to  inflict — and  that  it 
must  be,  upon  the  known  and  certain  principles  of  human  nature, 
a  more   eflicacious   preventive   of  murder    than  imprisonment  ? 
Whatever  eflicacy  the  law  exerts  in  restraining  from  the  perpe- 
tration of  this  crime  w^ould  be  lessened  by  the  proposed  diminution 
of  its  penalty,  as  certainly  as  theft  would  increase,  if  the  pun- 
ishment of  the  thief  were  lowered  to  the  restitution  of  a  portion 
only  of  the  amount  stolen.     This  conclusion  cannot  be  wrong — it 
is  an  inference  so  immediate,  from  facts  and  principles  that  are 
themselves  so  elementary  and  self-evident,  that  it  cannot  be  involved 
in  the  error  which  is  incident  to  remote  deductions  from  doubtful 
premises.     And  if  it  is  a  just  rule  of  reasoning,  that  that  which  is 
simple  and  certain,  should  be  used  to  illustrate  whatever  is  more 
complex  and  obscure,  then  this  truth  may  lend  its  aid  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  historical  sequences,  but  cannot  receive  its  proof  or  its 
refutation  from  them.     At  least,  it  never  can  is  refuted  by  any- 
thing less  than  an  experiment,  conducted  upon  a  large  scale,  pro- 
tracted through  a  period  long  enough  to  test  and  reject  every 
other  cause,  and  leading  to  results  so  clear  and  definite  that  they 
can  be  explained  on  no  other  hypothesis.     No  such  experiment  has 
yet  been  made.     Admitting  all  the  facts  alleged  on  the  other  side, 
they  do  not  constitute  even  the  beginning  of  what  could  be  con- 
sidered an  adequate    experiment.      In  the  meantime,  instead  of 
going  back  into  the  dim  obscure  of  a  traditional  antiquity,  or  abroad 
to  India,  Russia,  or  Tuscany,  to  gather  up  loose  and  vague  state- 
ments of  facts,  and  reason  from  them  upon  principles  which  would 
equally  well  warrant  us  in  concluding,  that  it  is  the  croaking  of 
the  frog  that  brings  back  the  spring,  or  the  singing  of  the  lark  that 
makes  the  sun  to  rise  ;  we  shall  prefer  to  stand  fast  by  such  prin- 
ciples of  truth  as  are  given  to  us  immediately  by  our  own  nature, 
and  by  the  sentiments  and  conduct  of  all  around  us.     And  if  we 
wish  the  sanction  of  authority  for  our  opinions,  we  shall  seek  it  in 
some  higher  quarter  than  among  the  disciples  of  an  infidel  philoso- 
phy, that  insults  God  and  degrades  man — a  philosophy  that  laying 
aside  all  its  higher  attributes,  and  wandering  from  its  palace,  has 


372  CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT. 

gone  forth  to  eat  grass  as  oxen — a  philosophy  which  may  chew  its 
cud,  and  tell  us  what  kind  of  grass  is  good,  but  which  can  do 
nothing  better,  until  it  regains  its  reason,  as  did  the  degraded 
monarch  of  old,  by  "  lifting  up  its  eyes  unto  heaven."  And  if  we 
are  to  be  influenced  by  imitation,  if"  patterns  of  noble  clemency" 
are  to  be  sought,  we  shall  go  somewhere  else  than  to  an  Empress, 
who  was  twice,  at  least,  a  murderer  of  the  foulest  degree,  and 
always  a  loathsome  adulteress. 

Our  ground  now  is,  that  society  has  the  right  to  take  away  life 
upon  sufficient  cause — that  death  is  not  an  excessive  penalty  for 
murder,  but,  on  the  contrary,  is  pointed  out  by  the  nature  of  the 
crime,  and  the  general  judgment  of  mankind  respecting  it,  as  its 
most  fitting  punishment — and  that  this  penalty  is  demanded  as  the 
most  effectual  preventive  of  the  crime.     If  these  several  positions 
are  established,  as  we  think  they  are,  then  our  case  is  fully  made 
out.     Nothing  more  is  necessary  to  prove  the  duty  of  the  sovereign 
authority  in  every  state,  to  establish  and  maintain  this  penalty. 
Mr.  O'Sullivan  does  indeeds  demand  that  besides  all  this,  we  should 
prove  that  though  capital  punishment  "  does  operate  to  produce 
that  effect  (the  prevention  of  murder),  it  is  not  accompanied  with 
other  evil  consequences,  upon  the  general  well-being  of  society, 
sufficient  to  neutralize  the  amount  of  advantage  which  it  may  tie. 
supposed  to  possess  in  this  respect  over  all  other  modes  of  preven- 
tive punishment."     That  is,  if   we   understand   this   aright,   we 
must   strike   the   balance   upon   some   such   calculation   as    this. 
We  must  find    how  many  murders  would  be  committed  within 
a  given  territory,  say  the  state  of  New  York,  during  a  definite 
period,  under  the  reign  of  capital  punishment — we  must  then  find 
to  what  number  this  would  be  increased  within  the  same  territory 
and  period,  if  capital  punishment  were  supplanted  by  imprison- 
ment  for  life :  let  us  suppose  that  there  would  be  three  mur- 
ders in  the  former  case,  and  five  in  the  latter  ;  we  should  then 
have  to  weigh  the  murder  of  three  men,  and  the  hanging  of  the 
three  murderers,  six  deaths  in  all,  against  the  five  murders  and  the 
perpetual  imprisonment  of  the  five  murderers  :   there  is  one  death 
more  in  the  first  case,  but  then  this  is  to  be  off*-set  by  the  incarce- 
ration of  five  men  for  life ;  it  must  be  taken  into  the  account,  too, 
that  three  of  the  six  deaths  are  inflicted  by  the  hand  of  the  law, 
and  we  must  calculate  whether  three  such  deaths  are  a  greater 
evil  than  the  two  surplus  murders  of  the  other  alternative ;  in  the 
latter  case,  too,  the  whole  five  are  driven  out  of  the  world  into 
eternity  without  a  moment  for  preparation,  while  in  the  former, 
three  of  the  six  have  timely  notice  to  prepare  for  death,  and  we 
must  estimate  the  value  of  this  consideration  :  after  settling  these 
and  many  other  like  points  which  arise  immediately  out  of  the  case, 
we  must  look  a  little  further  and  inquire  into  the  eflfects  of  solitary 
imprisonment  upon  health  of  body  and  soundness  of  mind — into 
the  probability  that  some  one  or  more  of  these  five  culprits  may  be 
reduced  to  a  state  of  insanity — into  the  alleged  tendency  of  capital 


CAPITAL   PUNISHMENT.  37$ 

punishment  to  produce  suicide,  compared  with  the  force  of  the 
temptation  which  the  five  men,  imprisoned  for  life,  will  lie  under 
to  the  commission  of  the  same  crime — into  the  temptation,  too, 
under  which  these  prisoners  will  lie,  doomed  as  they  already  are 
to  the  heaviest  punishment  which  can  be  laid  upon  them,  to  murder 
their  keepers,  and  escape  from  prison — into  ten  thousand  other 
questions  which  no  man  can  answer.  The  moment  we  attempt  to 
reduce  this  problem  of  the  calculation  of  general  consequences, 
out  of  the  vague  form  in  which  Mr.  O'Sullivan  states  it,  so  as  to 
get  it  in  a  condition  for  solution,  we  find  that  it  is  intricate  and  vast 
beyond  the  power  of  any  human  mind  to  comprehend.  This  is 
yet  another  illustration  of  the  utter  impotency  of  the  utilitarian 
philosophy  to  discuss  questions  of  guilt  and  innocence,  death  and 
life.  What  have  these  general  consequences  to  do  with  our  duty 
to  prevent  all  the  murders  that  we  can  ?  Out  upon  these  calcula- 
tions of  profit  and  loss  when  the  lives  of  innocent  men  are  in 
question !  We  have  no  patience  with  this  Iscariot  arithmetic, 
which  knows  how  to  calculate  so  precisely  the  price  of  innocent 
blood.  If  one  course  being  pursued,  which  it  is  right  for  us  to 
take,  there  would  be  only  three  murders  committed  during  the 
coming  year,  while  five  would  occur  under  an  altered  course,  then 
the  blood  of  the  two  men  whom  the  change  would  slay,  calls  upon 
us  for  protection,  and  we  are  blood-guilty  if  we  refuse  it. 

There  are  two  or  three  considerations,  referable  to  this  part  of 
the  discussion,  upon  which  it  may  be  expedient,  in  conclusion,  to 
bestow  a  passing  remark.  The  irremediable  nature  of  capital 
punishment  is  much  insisted  upon  by  the  advocates  of  the  other 
side  of  the  question.  If  a  mistake  has  been  committed,  by  the 
condemnation  of  an  innocent  man,  it  is  beyond  recall.  And  under 
this  head  we  generally  have  an  affecting  narrative  of  cases  in 
which  men  have  been  condemned  and  executed,  who  were  after- 
wards found  to  have  been  innocent.  An  exaggerated  impression 
is  commonly  produced  in  relation  to  the  number  of  such  cases. 
Many  are  given,  and  in  such  a  manner  as  to  leave  the  reader  to 
infer  that  they  are  but  selections  from  a  vastly  greater  number 
which  might  be  cited  ;  whereas  they  are  all,  or  nearly  all,  that  the 
most  diligent  ransacking  of  the  annals  of  criminal  jurisprudence 
has  been  able  to  furnish.  The  most  of  them  are  given  in  Phillips's 
Treatise  on  Evidence,  and  they  constitute  the  stock  in  trade  of  the 
prisoner's  counsel  in  all  murder  trials.  Whoever  will  examine 
these  cases  will  find  that  in  almost  every  instance,  except  those  in 
which  the  corpus  delicti  was  not  found,  and  it  appeared  afterwards 
that  no  murder  had  been  committed,  the  real  culprit  has  taken 
away  the  life  of  the  innocent  prisoner  by  perjury,  or  which  amounts 
to  the  same  thing,  by  arranging  and  directing  a  set  of  circumstan- 
ces so  as  to  implicate  him.  The  amount  of  it  is  that  the  murderer, 
in  addition  to  the  murder  already  committed,  has  made  use  of  an 
mstitution  of  justice,  instead  of  the  assassin's  knife,  to  perpetrate 
another.     There  is  in  such  cases  an  additional  murder  committed, 


374  CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT. 

not  by  the  law  nor  by  its  ministers,  nor  yet  by  the  State  which  gave 
them  their  authority,  but  by  the  wretch  who  has  brought  upon 
himself  the  guilt  of  a  double  murder  to  prevent  the  detection  of 
one.  Capital  punishment  may  in  this  way  occasionally  add  to  the 
number  of  murders.  This  is  a  consideration  which  we  feel  bound 
to  weigh,  as  it  involves  not  "  the  well-being  of  society"  but  the  life 
of  an  innocent  man.  What  then  is  its  true  value  in  its  bearing  upon 
the  general  question  ?  If  capital  punishment  be  the  doom  of  mur- 
der, there  may  occur  now  and  then,  with  extreme  rarity,  an  instance 
in  which  a  murderer  will  seize  upon  this  law  to  commit  another 
murder,  for  the  purpose  of  screening  the  one  already  committed. 
But  if  capital  punishment  be  abolished,  and  a  milder  substitute 
introduced,  the  diminished  severity  of  the  penalty  will  tend  at 
once  to  increase  the  number  of  murders.  It  will  be  observed  that 
we  do  not  undertake  to  weigh  the  consideration  under  discussion, 
by  placing  over  against  it  the  imprisonment  which,  under  the  pro- 
posed change,  would  in  like  circumstances  be  inflicted  upon  the 
innocent  prisoner,  nor  do  we  institute  any  inquiry  into  the  value  of 
the  restitution  that  would  be  made,  when,  after  years  of  incarce- 
ration, upon  the  discovery  of  his  innocence,  you  release  him 
broken  it  may  be  in  health,  and  shattered  in  mind.  We  make  no 
such  comparisons.  We  w^eigh  murder  only  with  murder.  And 
dreadful  as  is  the  thought,  that  guilty  men  may  be  able  in  rare 
cases  to  make  use  of  the  law,  notwithstanding  all  the  precautions 
which  guard  its  exercise,  to  carry  into  effect  a  purpose  of  murder, 
we  would  still  uphold  the  law,  because  we  are  certain  that  its 
abrogation  would  lead  to  tenfold  more  murders  than  can  possibly 
be  committed  through  this  abuse  of  it. 

Here  too  we  may  point  out  another  mode  in  which  the  abroga- 
tion of  capital  punishment  must  certainly  increase  the  number  of 
murders.  We  have  spoken  already  of  the  strong  conviction  which 
has  always  pervaded  the  hearts  of  the  mass  of  mankind,  that  death 
is  the  fitting  and  the  only  fitting  punishment  for  murder.  This 
conviction  is  not  the  product  of  a  passionate  excitement  of  feeling: 
it  has  its  seat  in  the  sense  of  justice,  and  is  deep  and  strong  as  the 
heart  of  man.  Now  just  as  surely  as  capital  punishment  is  abo- 
lished, this  conviction  that  the  murderer  ought  to  die  will  combine 
with  the  exasperated  feelings  of  the  near  of  kin  to  the  murdered, 
and  the  avenger  of  blood  will  be  abroad  through  the  land.  Men 
who  would  not  under  any  other  exigency  trample  upon  the  laws 
of  the  land,  will  take  upon  themselves  the  work  of  vengeance 
under  the  impulse  of  what  they  will  consider  a  higher  law  written 
on  their  hearts  ;  and  murder  will  thus  be  added  to  murder. 

"  Passion  then  would  plead 
In  angry  spirits,  for  her  old  free  range, 
And  the  wild  justice  of  Revenge  prevail." 

The  only  other  objection  to  capital  punishment  that  calls  for 
notice,  is  that  which  is  drawn  from  its  cutting  short  the  period  of 


CAPITAL    PUNISHMENT.  375 

man's  probation.  This  objection  has  but  little  weight  with  us,  for 
believing  as  we  do  that  God  has  revealed  to  us  His  will,  both 
through  the  laws  of  reason  and  conscience,  and  in  his  written  word, 
that  the  murderer  should  be  put  to  death,  we  consider  the  arrest  of 
the  term  of  his  probation,  through  the  infliction  of  this  sentence, 
as  no  less  distinctly  and  properly  the  dispensation  of  Divine  Pro- 
vidence, than  if  the  criminal  had  been  cut  off  by  a  sudden  disease. 
But  independent  of  this  view,  let  us  beg  those  who  urge  this  objec- 
tion to  remember  the  compassion  which  is  due  to  those  who  are  to 
be  murdered  as  well  as  to  the  murderer.  By  the  abolition  of 
capital  punishment  we  should  increase  the  number  of  murders,  and 
thus  cut  short  the  probation  of  those  that  are  murdered,  and  with 
this  additional  aggravation,  that  they  are  sent  without  notice,  with- 
out a  moment  for  thought,  to  their  last  account ;  while  to  the  vic- 
tim of  the  law  we  give  time  for  repentance  and  preparation.  This 
consideration  meets  the  objection  and  disposes  of  it  by  presenting 
an  evil  of  like  kind  but  greater  magnitude,  which  cannot  but  fol- 
low the  repeal  of  the  penalty  of  death.  In  addition  to  this,  too, 
let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  that  no  man  can  tell  whether  imprisoning 
the  culprit  for  life,  in  the  manner  proposed,  would  not  as  effectually 
interfere  with  the  ends  of  his  probation,  as  to  put  him  to  death 
after  timely  notice.  Consider  the  case  of  a  man  condemned  to 
death,  with  several  weeks  intervening  between  the  sentence  and 
its  execution,  perfectly  certain  that  the  hour  is  fixed  in  which  he  is 
to  appear  before  his  Judge,  and  placed  under  the  strongest  motives 
to  induce  him  to  repent  and  avail  himself  of  the  means  of  salva- 
tion,— and  then  contrast  with  this  the  situation  in  which  he  would 
be  placed,  if  immured  within  the  penitentiary,  with  a  life-time 
before  him  for  the  spirit  of  procrastination  to  range  over,  cut  off 
ft-om  the  influence  of  public  opinion,  and  other  manifold  influences 
which  are  ordinarily  at  work  upon  men, — placed  under  circum- 
stances so  new,  and  strange,  and  trying,  that  many  minds  have 
given  way  entirely  under  them  and  become  insane, — when  all 
these  things  are  taken  into  the  account  how  shall  we  determine 
which  of  these  dooms  would  most  effectually,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  interfere  with  the  probation  of  the  criminal.  Happily  it 
is  not  necessary  for  us  to  determine  this  question,  in  order  to  learn 
our  duty.  In  executing  the  murderer  we  are  but  instruments  in 
the  hands  of  Providence  to  effect  his  purposes :  and  we  are  pre- 
venting, so  far  as  we  can,  other  murderers  from  cutting  short  the 
lives  of  those  whom  it  is  our  sacred  duty  to  protect.  They  have 
claims  upon  us  which  the  murderer  has  wilfully  forfeited — they 
have  rights  which  we  cannot  put  in  jeopardy,  by  an  ill-judged 
lenity  to  the  guilty,  without  incurring  a  heavy  responsibility.  It 
can  be  no  part  of  our  duty,  through  the  weakness  of  a  blind  com- 
passion, to  clip  the  demands  of  justice  upon  the  criminal,  and  thus 
let  loose  the  bloody  hand  of  violence  upon  the  innocent. 


ESSAY    xin 


PHRENOLOGY. 


In  despite  of  all  the  ridicule  and  argument  which  have  been 
levelled  at  phrenology,  it  has,  of  late  years,  made  considerable 
advances  ;  and  it  now  excites  more  attention,  and  numbers  more 
disciples  than  at  any  former  period.  Its  advocates  have  abated 
nothing  from  the  lofty  pretensions  of  their  favourite  science ;  for 
science^  they  assure  us  it  is,  and  the  first  of  all  the  sciences  in 
intrinsic  dignity  and  importance.  They  claim  that  it  is  the  great- 
est and  most  valuable  discovery  ever  communicated  to  mankind ; 
that  it  casts  the  only  certain  light  upon  the  nature  and  operations 
of  the  human  mind  ;  and  that  it  will  contribute  more  important  aid 
towards  the  education  and  the  general  improvement  of  the  race, 
than  can  be  obtained  from  any  other  source.  "  The  discoveries 
of  the  revolution  of  the  globe,  and  the  circulation  of  the  blood, 
were  splendid  displays  of  genius  in  their  authors,  and  interesting 
and  beneficial  to  mankind ;  but  their  results,  compared  with  the 
consequences  which  must  inevitably  follow  from  Dr.  Gall's  disco- 
very of  the  functions  of  the  brain,  sink  into  relative  insignificance." 
So  says  Mr.  George  Combe,  the  ablest  of  the  phrenologists. 

A  science  which  promises  such  wonderful  results,  which  pro- 
fesses to  subject  the  most  abstruse  problems  in  mental  science  to 
the  ordeal  of  the  sight  and  touch,  which,  from  its  lofty  elevation, 
compassionates  the  wandering  bewilderment  of  Locke,  and  won- 
ders that  Newton  did  not  study  skulls  instead  of  stars,  or  that 
Harvey  should  have  wasted  his  time  in  discovering  the  circulation 
of  the  blood,  when  he  might  have  been  so  much  more  profitably 
employed  in  measuring  the  bumps  of  the  cranium,  deserves  cer- 
tainly the  most  respectful  consideration  from  all  who  desire  the 
increase  of  knowledge  or  the  welfare  of  mankind.  Such  conside- 
ration, its  friends  seem  disposed  to  think,  it  has  not  yet  obtained. 
Mr.  Combe  commences  the  last  edition  of  his  System  of  Phreno- 
logy with  an  affecting  account  of  the  unfavourable  reception  which 

*  Originally  published  in  1S3S,  in  review  of  «'  An  Examination  of  Phrenology,  in 
two  Lectures,  delivered  to  the  Students  of  the  Columbian  College,  District  of  Colum- 
bia, February,  1837.  By  Thomas  Sewall,  M.  D.,  Professor  of  Anatomy  and  Physi- 
ology.*' 


PHRENOLOGY.  377 

most  other  great  discoveries  have  met  with  upon  their  first 
announcement,  and  consoles  himself  and  his  collaborators  by  call- 
ing to  mind  the  opposition,  ridicule  and  persecution  which  were 
encountered  by  Aristotle,  Galileo,  Descartes,  Harvey  and  Newton. 
Mr.  Combe  is  not  very  well  read  in  the  history  of  the  hardships 
endured  by  the  pioneers  of  philosophical  discovery,  or  he  might 
have  increased  his  catalogue  by  many  additional  names,  such  as 

;  our  readers  may  fill  the  blank  with  Anaxagoras,  Socrates, 

Tycho,  and  Kepler,  or  by  Symmes,  Mesmer,  and  Perkins,  accord- 
ing to  their  different  estimates  of  the  persecuted  science  of  phre- 
nology. 

We  do  not  feel  disposed  to  throw  ridicule  upon  any  set  of  men  who 
are  labouring,  with  an  honest  purpose  and  a  sincere  love  of  truth, 
to  extend  the  boundaries  of  human  knowledge  in  any  direction. 
We  can  look  with  something  like  complacency  upon  what  would 
be  swaggering  and  impudent  pretension,  were  it  not  supposed  to 
originate  in  the  harmless  enthusiasm  of  fancied  discovery,  and 
thankfully  receive  the  truths  that  are  offered  us,  even  though  we 
should  rate  them  at  a  less  value  than  is  affixed  by  those  who  have, 
with  great  research  and  labour,  produced  them.  To  the  untiring 
labours  of  the  phrenologists,  we  have  therefore  looked  with  much 
interest,  hoping  that  they  would  contribute  something  valuable  to 
our  knowledge  of  the  mutual  functions  of  the  mind  and  body,  and 
assured  that  if  this  hope  should  not  be  realized,  we  should  at  least 
have  the  benefit  of  what  may  be  called  a  negative  experiment, 
proving  that  there  is  no  knowledge  to  be  gained  in  the  region 
which  they  have  so  assiduously  cultivated.  They  have  had  among 
them  some  men  of  eminent  abilities,  united  with  keen  ardour,  in 
the  pursuit  of  their  favourite  object ;  and  sufficient  time  has  been 
allowed,  according  to  their  own  representations,  to  put  their  sys- 
tem in  an  available  form,  and  complete  it,  except  in  some  of  its 
subordinate  details.  With  the  fearlessness  of  conscious  strength, 
they  challenge  the  rigorous  investigations  of  all  who  are  compe- 
tent to  form  an  opinion  of  its  claims.  We  propose,  therefore,  to 
institute  an  inquiry  into  the  validity  of  the  grounds  on  which  their 
science  rests,  and  the  value  of  the  results  it  has  produced. 

Phrenology,  as  now  set  forth,  is  a  modern  science ;  but  the 
opinion  that  separate  portions  of  the  brain  are  employed  in  differ- 
ent mental  operations,  is  of  very  ancient  date.  Aristotle  speaks  of 
the  brain,  as  consisting  of  a  congeries  of  organs,  and  assigns  to  dif- 
ferent parts,  diflferent  mental  functions.  The  anterior  part  of  the 
cerebral  mass,  he  apportions  to  common  sense, — the  middle,  to 
imagination,  judgment,  and  reflection — and  the  posterior,  to  memo- 
ry. Galen  seems  to  have  been  acquainted  with  the  views  of  Aris- 
totle, and  to  have  adopted  them.  Nemesius,  the  first  bishop  of 
Emesa,  in  the  reign  of  Theodosius,  taught  that  the  sensations  had 
their  origin  in  the  anterior  ventricle  of  the  brain,  memory  in  the 
middle,  and  understanding  in  the  posterior  ventricle.  Albertus 
Magnus,  Archbishop  of  Ratisbon,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  drew 


378  PHRENOLOGY. 

a  head,  upon  which  he  delineated  the  supposed  seats  of  the  differ- 
ent faculties  and  affections.  Peter  de  Montagnana,  Michael  Ser- 
vetus,  Ludovico  Dolci,  and  many  other  writers,  have  published 
similar  hypotheses  respecting  the  locality  of  the  various  mental 
powers.  But  the  most  elaborate  work  upon  this  subject,  with 
which  we  are  acquainted,  is  the  trqatise  of  John  Baptista  Porta,  or, 
as  he  is  called  by  the  Italians,  Giovan  Batista  de  la  Porta,  an  eminent 
philosopher  of  Naples,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
He  was  famed  for  his  skill  in  mathematics,  philosophy,  natural 
history,  and  medicine,  and  he  published  many  works  connected  with 
these  various  branches  of  knowledge.  Among  these  was  the  curi- 
ous treatise  to  which  we  have  alluded,  entitled  "  De  Humana  Phy- 
siologia."  He  maintains  that  the  character  of  every  man,  his 
intellectual  and  moral  qualities,  may  be  learned  from  his  bodily 
configuration,"  and  explains  minutely  the  indications  afforded  by  the 
different  forms  and  sizes  of  its  several  parts,  confirming  his  opi- 
nions by  the  testimony  of  previous  writers,  chiefly  of  Aristotle  and 
Albertus,  and  by  analogies  between  certain  conformations  of  the 
"  human  face  divine,"  and  some  of  the  races  of  brutes.  In  his  sys- 
tem, every  lineament  of  the  face,  and  every  member  of  the  body, 
even  the  fingers  and  nails,  bear  their  testimony  to  the  qualities  of 
the  mind,  but  he  lays  the  greatest  stress  upon  the  form  of  the  cra- 
nium. The  reason  which  he  assigns  for  attaching  so  much  impor- 
tance to  the  shape  of  the  head,  is  that  the  form  of  the  brain  depends 
upon  that  of  the  skull,  and  that  a  deficiency  in  any  part  of  the  skull, 
discloses  therefore  a  corresponding  deficiency  in  the  brain,  and 
indicates  the  feebleness  of  the  faculties  which  have  their  seat  in 
that  portion.  "  Cerebri  forma  cranii  formam  sequitur,  et  si  ejus 
figura  corrupta  fuerit,  etiam  cerebri  forma  corrumpetur."  This  is 
a  clear  and  precise  statement  of  one  of  the  fundamental  positions 
of  modern  phrenology. 

It  is  no  part  of  our  intention,  however,  to  detract  from  the  origi- 
nality of  Dr.  Gall  as  the  discoverer  of  phrenology.  Nothing  but 
general  hints  had  been  thrown  out  by  previous  writers.  No  one 
had  ventured  further  than  the  opinion  that  certain  large  portions  of 
the  brain  were  devoted  to  distinct  classes  of  mental  operations,  and 
only  Baptista  Porta  had  suggested  the  general  truth  that  the  form 
of  the  brain  might  be  learned  from  the  external  configuration  of 
the  skull.  Dr.  Gall  has  done  for  this  subject  what  Newton  did  for 
the  theory  of  the  universe, — he  has  proved  that  to  be  true  which 
before  was  but  conjecture.  The  account  which  he  has  given  of 
the  manner  in  which  he  was  led  to  make  his  great  discovery  is 
substantially  as  follows.  His  attention  was  strongly  drawn,  while 
he  was  yet  a  boy,  to  the  various  tastes,  dispositions,  and  talents,  dis- 
played by  the  different  members  of  his  family.  At  school  he 
observed  similar  differences  among  his  companions,  and  in  par- 
ticular was  led  to  remark  that  the  boys  who  were  distinguished 
for  their  retentive  memories,  had  large  and  prominent  eyes.  When 
he  subsequently  went  to  the  university,  he  found  this  same  pecu- 


PHRENOLOGY.  379 

liarity  of  feature  in  all  the  students  who  were  distinguished  for 
tenacity  of  memory.     Following  out  the  general  idea  which  was 
thus  suggested,  he  imagined  that  other  mental  qualities  might  have 
their  signs  in  the  external  features,  and  he,  at  length,  supposed 
that  he  had  discovered  certain  peculiarities  which  were  indicative 
of  some  other  intellectual    endowments.      Afterwards,  when  he 
came  to  study  medicine,  it  occurred  to  him  that  the  differences  in 
the  configuration  of  the  head,  which  he  had  observed  in  connexion 
with  certain  dispositions,  were  owing  to  differences  in  the  form  of 
the  brain.     This  happy  idea  was  the  initiative  of  his  whole  system. 
It  inspired  him  at  once  with  the  hope  that  with  this  clue  he  might 
successfully  trace   the  windings  of  that  labyrinth  where  every 
previous  explorer  had  been  lost,  the  connexion  between  the  body 
and  the  mind,  and  the  secret  causes  of  that  great  variety  which  we 
see  in  moral  disposition  and  intellectual  ability.     He  immediately 
began  to  direct  his  researches  to  this  object,  by  collecting  animals 
of  various  kinds,  and  studying  the  relations  between  their  external 
forms,  and  their  natural  instincts  and  dispositions.     He  procured, 
at  the  stme  time,  all  the  skulls  which  he  could  obtain,  of  persons 
whose  history  or  character  was  known.    Upon  hearing  of  any  one 
who  was  distinguished  for  a  particular  mental  or  moral  quality, 
he   never   rested    until   he    had  seen,  and,   if  possible,   felt   the 
form  of  his  cranium.     He  would  then  inquire  diligently  for  some 
noted  case  of  deficiency  of  the  same  trait  or  faculty,  that  he  might 
compare  together  the  positive  and  negative  indications.     If,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  met  with  one  whose  head  presented  any  singularity 
in  shape,  he  spared  no  pains  to  ascertain  his  intellectual  and  moral 
character,  and  when  all  other  means  of  investigation  failed,  he 
would  not  hesitate  to  inquire  of  the  individual  himself,  whether  he 
was  remarkable  for  any  faculty  of  mind  or  disposition  of  heart. 
He  was  also  in  the  habit,  while  walking  in  the  streets  of  Vienna, 
where  he  at  this  time  lived,  of  collecting  the  boys  around  him, 
and,  after  observing  their   skulls,  bribing  them  to  confess  their 
faults,  and  betray  those  of  their  companions.    He  would  even 
seek  to  involve  them  in  quarrels  that  he  might  learn  which  pos- 
sessed the  most  courage.     Upon  the  death  of  any  celebrated  indi- 
vidual, he  used  all  possible  exertion  to  procure  his  skull,  and  as 
this  propensity  of  the  doctor  became  known,  it  spread  a  very 
general  alarm  among  the  inhabitants  of  Vienna,  not  a  few  being 
haunted  by  the  fear  that  their  heads  would  hereafter  grace  his  ana- 
tomical cabinet,  instead  of  resting  quietly  in  the  grave.     The  aged 
librarian  to  the  Emperor  of  Austria,  Mr!  Denis,  inserted  a  prohibi- 
tory clause  in  his  will,  to  protect  his  head  from  the  keen  scalpel 
of  Dr.  Gall.     He  contrived  nevertheless  to  collect  a  large  number 
of  skulls.     In  the  meantime  he  visited  schools,  prisons,  houses  of 
correction,  and  lunatic  asylums,  he  invited  companies  of  beggars, 
porters,  and  coachmen,  from  the  street  into  his  house,  and  then 
excited  them  to  act  out  their  characters  before  him  ;  he  neglected 
no  means  of  observation  within  his  reach,  to  acquaint  himself  with 


3S0  PHRENOLOGY. 

the  internal  dispositions  and  the  external  protuberances  of  the 
skull,  in  all  to  whom  he  could  gain  access.     During  this  lengthened 
period  of  observation,  he  was  often  involved  in  perplexity  and 
confusion.     The  induction  from  many  previous  instances,  assign- 
ing the  locality  of  a  particular  faculty,  would  often  be  overthrown 
by  a  new  skull,  and  a  careful  revision  of  all  the  former  cases 
would  be  rendered  necessary.     By  degrees,  however,  his  conclu- 
sions became  stable,  and  the  multitudinous  phenomena  which  he 
had  observed,  being  all  reduced  within  the  compass  of  a  few  gene- 
ral laws,  each  comprising  under  it  a  large  number  of  particular 
instances,  the  science  of  phrenology  was  the  result.     As  in  other 
sciences,  the  general  law  which  he  had  proved  to  be  true  by  an 
extended  process  of  induction,  was  then  applied,  in  the  way  of 
deduction,  to  the  explanation  of  such  phenomena  as  came  within 
its  range.     In   1796,  Dr.  Gall  considered  his  system  sufficiently 
perfected  to  be  announced  to  the  world,  and  he  accordingly  gave 
a  course  of  public  lectures  in  Y ienna,  in  explanation  and  defence  of 
the  newly-discovered  science.     He  continued  to  lecture  annually 
for  five  successive  years,  his  opinions  being  eagerly  received  by 
many,  and  giving  rise  to  much  warm  discussion,  when,  in  1808^ 
an  order  was  issued  by  the  Austrian  government,  forbidding  him 
to  lecture,  on  the  ground  that  his  doctrines  savoured  of  material- 
ism and  atheism,  and  were  dangerous  to  the  cause  of  moralitj^ 
and  religion.     The  decrees  of  courts  cannot  fetter  the  mind.     The 
effect  of  this  interdict  was  to  stimulate  public  curiosity,  and  phre- 
nology was  studied  with  greater  zeal  than  before.     A  strong  party 
was  soon  gathered  on  the  side  of  the  silenced  philosopher,  througb 
whose  influence  at  court,  the  prohibition  was  so  far  removed  as  to 
permit  him  to  lecture  publicly  to  such  foreigners  as  might  be  resi- 
dent in  Vienna,  the  Emperor,  it  may  be  supposed,  feeling  litdG 
concern  for  the  "  morality  and  religion  "  of  any  but  his  own  sub- 
iects.     About  this  time  Dr.  Gall  associated  Dr.  Spurzheim  wi " 
him,  and  they  laboured  together  for  several  years.     They  refraim 
from  committing  themselves  by  any  publication.     The  first  pu! 
lished  notice  of  the  new  science  was  given  in  the  Deutsche  Mer~ 
of  Wieland,  in   1798,  in  a  letter  from  Dr.  Gall,  announcing 
intention  of  publishing  a  large  work  upon  the  subject,  and  giv 
a  glimpse  of  his  theory.      In  1802,  an  outline  of  his  system 
given  in  a  published  letter  from  M.  Charles  Villers  to  Cuvier. 
was  through  this  letter,  and  the  review  of  it  in  the  Edinbu 
Review,  that  the  subject  was  introduced  into  England.     Whil 
the  promised  work  in  exposition  of  the  system  was  delayed,  sur| 
reptitious  copies  of  Dr.  Gall's  lectures  were  circulated  throughout 
Germany,  and  they  excited  so  much  attention,  that  he  was  induced 
in  company  with  Dr.  Spurzheim,  to  visit  the  principal  universitie 
and  cities  of  Germany  and  Prussia,  for  the  purpose  of  explaining 
his  doctrines.     In  1809,  these  two  co-labourers  commenced  th  , 
publication  of  their  great  work  on  the  anatomy  and  physiology  c 
the  bra'n,  which  was  completed  ten  years  afterwards,  in  lou 


MttBKOLOOT.  381 

quarto  volumes,  Thejr  subsequently  separated,  Dr.  Gall  taking 
up  his  residence  at  Paris,  and  Dr.  Spurzheim  conlinuinff  to  travel 
extensively  through  Europe,  collecting  new  facts,  and  teaching 
phrenology  wherever  he  could  find  hearers.  In  1832,  he  visite3 
the  United  States,  and  died  at  Boston,  a  few  months  after  his 
arrival.    Dr.  Gall  died  at  Paris,  in  1828. 

Were  we  attempting  to  give  a  full  history  of  the  oricin  and 
progress  of  phrenology,  we  should  assign  a  conspicuous  place  to 
Mr.  George  Combe,  of  Edinburgh,  whose  writings  have  done  far 
more  to  recommend  the  subject  than  those  of  Gall  and  Spurzheim. 
Edinburgh  has  been  for  several  years  the  stronghold  of  this 
science.  A  monthly  journal,  devoted  to  the  inculcation  of  its 
doctrines,  is  published  there  under  the  auspices  of  Mr.  Combe. 

In  our  own  country  phrenology  has  attracted  much  attention. 
The  writings  of  Spurzheim  and  Combe  have   been  extensively 
circulated,  and  we  have  had  several  "Manuals'*  and  "  Outlines"  of 
native  growth.    Itinerant  lecturers  too,  emulating  the  zeal  of  the 
peripatetic  fathers  of  this  sect,  have  travelled  through  the  land, 
expounding  the  principles  of  the  science,  and  gauging  the  heads  of 
all  who  were  wuling  to  pay  their  dollar  to  be  informed  of  their 
true  character  and  prospects.     It   is   not   surprising   Uial   these 
lecturers  have  been  popular.     They  find  someining  good  in  every 
head  submitted  to  their  inspection,  outside  of  the  walls  of  a  prison. 
If  there  should  chance  to  be  in  any  case  a  suspicious  development 
of  a  wicked  organ,  they  are  at  no  loss  to  find  a  controlling  influ- 
ence in  the  unwonted  strength  of  some  good  propensity.    It  is  so 
exceedingly  pleasant  to  be  flattered  into  a  good  opinion  of  one's 
self,  not  by  astrology,  reading  the  character  in  the  stars,  nor  by 
palmistiy,  detecting  it  in  the  lines  of  the  hand,  but  by  a  true 
science,  uttering  its  oracular  responses  upon  indubitable  evidence, 
that  we  do  not  wonder  that   Merlin,  witli  his  white  beard  and 
mystic   wand,   is  quite  out  of  fashion,   and   that  the   wandering 
gypsy  has  been  fairly    driven    from   the   field.     The    cheapness 
too  of  this  mode  of  self-knowledge  renders  it  highly  attractive. 
Who,  that  has  toiled  in  fulfilment  of  the  "  heaven  descended,  know 
tkysdf^^  with  much  meditation  and  inward  searching,  seeking  to 
penerate  into  the  recesses  of  his  heart,  and  with  mucii  wearisome 
watching,  endeavouring   to    detect   in   his   actions  the  outward 
manifestation  of  feelings  not  otherwise  discoverable,  and  after  all 
his  labour,  never  fully  satisfied  that  some  coming  emergency  may 
not  reveal  to  him  unsuspected  weaknesses  and  defects  of  character, 
would  not  willingly  open  his  purse  to  pay  for  a  knowledge   of 
himself,  furnished  upon  principles  as  certain  as  those  which  make 
known  to  us  the  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  so  precise 
in  its  accuracy,  that  it  will  give  us  numerical  expressions  lor  the 
relative  strength  of  all  our  propensities.     The  troublesome  process 
of  ascertaining  the  character  is  reduced  to  a  simple  operation  of 
arithmetic.     Benevolence  on  a  particular  head  is  five,  destructive- 
ness  three,  and  acquisitiveness  two, — how  comforting  to  the  owner 


5J^ 


382  PHRENOLOGY. 

of  it  to  know  that  there  is  a  clear  balance  of  two  against  the 
probability  of  his  ever  being  led  to  commit  murder  or  break 
windows,  and  a  still  more  decided  balance  of  three,  against  his 
committing  burglary  or  highway  robbery.  But  let  us  leave 
these  mountebank  practitioners  of  the  art,  and  enter  on  the  exami- 
nation of  the  principles  of  the  science. 

The  principles  of  phrenology,  as  given  by  Dr.  Sewall,  are  ten 
in  number.  All  that  is  essential  to  the  system,  however,  may  be 
comprised  in  the  following  propositions.  1.  That  the  brain  is  the 
material  organ  of  the  mind,  and  necessary  to  all  its  operations.  2, 
That  in  proportion  to  the  size  of  this  organ  will  be  the  vigour  of 
the  intellectual  faculties.  3.  That  the  brain  is  a  congeries  of 
organs,  thirty-five  in  number,  each  commencing  at  the  medulla 
oblongata,  and  thence  extending  upward,  in  the  form  of  an  inverted 
cone,  to  the  upper  surface  of  the  bran.  4.  That  each  of  these 
organs  is  the  instrument  of  a  distinct  faculty,  propensity,  or 
sentiment  of  the  mind,  and  that  no  mental  operation  can  be 
performed  without  the  aid  of  its  appropriate  organ  ;  and  further, 
that  in  proportion  to  the  size  of  any  organ  will  be  the  strength  of 
the  faculty  which  works  by  its  means.  5.  That  we  can  judge  of 
the  size  of  the  organs,  and  therefore  of  the  character  of  the  mind, 
by  the  external  projections  of  the  skull. 

The  opinion  contained  in  the  first  of  these  propositions  is  not 
peculiar  to  the  phrenologists.  Three  different  theories  have  been 
held  of  the  dependency  of  the  mind  on  the  body.  That  all  the 
mental  phenomena  are  the  results  of  organization,  thought  being 
the  necessary  product  of  a  material  organ  like  the  brain ;  secondly, 
that  the .  mind  is  an  immaterial  principle,  superadded  to  the 
organized  structure  of  the  body,  but  still  requiring  the  intervention 
of  a  material  organ  for  the  performance  of  its  acts  ;  and,  thirdly, 
that  though  the  mind  is  in  some  mysterious  way  connected  with 
the  body,  yet  it  does  not  employ  any  material  instrument  in 
carrying  on  its  processes,  except  in  such  acts  as  have  refer- 
ence to  material  objects.  The  first  of  these  opinions  is  mate- 
rialism, and  it  can  scarcely  be  stated  in  terms  which  do  not 
convey  its  refutation.  It  supposes  that  matter,  in  a  certain 
state,  is  capable  of  thought,  voHtion,  and  affection.  The  second 
opinion,  which  teaches  that  the  mind  is  a  distinct  principle  from  the 
body,  and  yet  so  united  with  it,  as  to  require  the  direct  instrumen- 
tality of  the  brain  in  all  its  manifestations,  is  the  one  which  has 
been  generally  embraced  by  physiologists  and  metaphysicians,  and 
universally  by  the  phrenologists,  to  whose  theory  indeed  it  is  essen- 
tial. In  support  of  this  opinion  it  has  been  urged  that  we  find  no 
symptoms  of  intelligence  in  animals  that  are  not  furnished  with  a  ; 
brain,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  wherever  this  organ  is  found,  it  j 
is  accompanied  by  some  manifestations  of  mind.  Those  creatures  ; 
which  stand  as  the  frontier  instances  of  animal  life,  affording  the  » 
feeblest  and  lowest  indications  of  its  properties,  are  found  to  pos- 
sess merely  a  nervous  thread  or  ring.     As  we  ascend  the  scale  of 


PHRENOLOGY.  383 

animal  existence,  we  discover  first  a  line  of  ganglions,  or  nervous 
plexuses  ;  then  a  double  column  of  distinct  portions  of  nervous 
matter,  forming  a  spinal  marrow  ;  this  is  succeeded  by  a  cerebel- 
lum ;  and  this  again  by  a  cerebrum,  or  brain  proper.  Each  of 
these  additions  to  the  nervous  system  always  includes  the  inferior 
parts.  A  cerebrum  is  never  found  without  a  cerebellum,  nor  the 
latter  without  the  subordinate  system  of  nervous  ganglions.  Com- 
mencing with  the  animals  that  possess  the  simplest  form  of  the 
brain,  we  find  this  organ,  as  we  ascend,  becoming  more  compli- 
cated and  perfect  in  its  structure,  until  we  reach  the  human  brain ; 
and  at  every  step  of  the  scale  in  tracing  its  gradual  refinement,  we 
find  each  successive  improvement  marked  by  some  addition  or 
enlargement  of  the  powers  of  the  animal.  It  has  been  moreover 
found  that  the  human  brain  is  gradually  evolved  from  a  much 
simpler  form.  Its  earliest  state  shows  no  symptom  of  that  elaborate 
organization  which  it  ultimately  attains.  From  a  laborious  exami- 
nation of  the  condition  of  the  foetal  brain,  Tiedemann  has  shown 
that  this  organ  attains  its  complicated  structure  by  gradual  pro- 
gress through  much  simpler  forms.  This  might  have  been  antici- 
pated, for  Harvey  had  already  proved  that  the  growth  of  the 
human  foetus  was  not  by  the  mere  enlargement  of  parts  already 
possessed,  but  by  the  evolution  of  successive  forms  of  organization. 
Tiedemann  has  succeeded  in  proving  not  only  that  the  brain  is 
thus  developed,  but  that  it  is  an  exact  parallel  between  the  tem- 
porary states  of  the  foetal  brain,  during  the  periods  of  advancing 
gestation,  and  the  permanent  development  of  that  organ  at  succes- 
sive points  of  the  animal  scale. 

The  gradual  unfolding  of  the  intellectual  faculties  from  infancy 
upward,  corresponding  with  the  advance  of  the  brain  from  its  soft 
and  pulpy  state  to  its  perfect  form,  is  urged  as  another  reason  for 
believing  that  this  organ  is  the  instrument  of  all  mental  manifesta- 
tions. And  in  old  age,  when  the  brain  becomes  shrivelled  and 
dry,  the  powers  of  the  mind  decay.  These  facts  are  deemed  irre- 
concilable with  the  supposition  that  the  exercises  of  the  mind  are 
the  exclusive  product  of  a  spiritual  or  immaterial  principle,  since 
such  a  principle  cannot  be  supposed  capable  of  alteration,  of 
growing  with  the  growth  of  the  body,  and  of  decaying  with  its 
decay. 

Nor  are  other  plausible  arguments  wanting.  Whatever  destroys 
the  integrity  of  the  brain,  impairs  or  deranges  the  mental  faculties, 
if  it  do  not  utterly  abolish  them  ;  and  even  a  functional  disorder  of 
this  organ  never  fails  to  manifest  itself  in  the  complete  delirium,  or 
at  least  the  weakened  energy  of  the  mind.  In  cases  of  fractured 
skull,  when  a  portion  of  bone,  or  the  extravasated  blood  of  some  of  the 
encephalic  vessels,  compresses  the  brain,  there  is  a  total  suspension 
of  all  mental  activity  ;  and  the  mind  awakes  again  from  its  uncon- 
scious lethargy  as  soon  as  the  operation  of  the  trephine  has  removed 
the  compressing  cause.  When  the  brain  has  been  exposed,  as  in 
the  noted  instance  of  the  female  cited  by  Richerand,  the  pressure  of 


384  PHRENOLOGY. 


I 


the  finger  upon  it  has  been  instantly  followed  by  a  state  of  uncon- 
sciousness, which  would  continue  until  the  pressure  was  removed. 

The  phenomena  of  sleep  and  dreaming  also  are  supposed  to  be 
inconsistent  with  the  hypothesis  that  the  mind  acts  without  a 
material  organ,  while  they  are  easily  explicable,  if  we  consider  the 
mind  dependent  upon  the  brain,  and  therefore  controlled  in  its 
actions  by  the  partial  suspension  of  the  functions  of  this  organ 
during  these  states.  Since  an  immaterial  principle  is  simple  and 
indivisible,  it  must  be  incapable  of  any  alteration  of  structure  or 
disarrangement  of  function,  and  of  course  exempt  from  disease. 
The  frequent  occurrence  of  temporary  delirium  and  of  permanent 
insanity  is  therefore  urged  in  further  proof  of  the  proposition  that 
the  brain  is  the  organ  of  the  mind.* 

Such,  substantially,  are  the  facts  and  reasonings  by  which  it  is 
thought  that  this  truth  is  established.  Nor  are  they  destitute  of 
force.  They  unquestionably  prove  that  there  exists  some  con- 
nexion between  the  brain  and  the  mind,  in  virtue  of  which  they 
exert  a  reciprocal  influence,  but  so  may  it  be  proved  also  that  all 
the  other  vital  organs  act  upon  the  mind,  and  the  mind  upon  them. 
Strong  emotions  generally  show  their  first  physical  symptom  in 
the  accelerated  or  retarded  action  of  the  heart.  And  hence  some 
modern  physiologists,  particularly  Bichat,  who  hold  that  the  brain 
is  the  organ  of  the  intellectual  faculties,  have  revived  the  ancient 
doctrine  of  the  Greek  physicians,  that  the  affections  and  passions 
have  their  seat  in  the  viscera  of  the  abdomen  and  thorax.  And 
certainly  if  any  stress  is  to  be  laid,  as  is  usually  done,  in  argument 
upon  this  subject,  on  the  common  sentiment  of  mankind,  as  indi- 
cated by  their  language,  referring  intellectual  exercises  to  the  headt 
we  have  equally  good  reason  for  affirming  that  the  feelings  have 
their  local  habitation  in  the  heart 

In  considering  the  question,  whether  the  brain  is  the  organ  of 
the  mind,  we  find  a  difliculty  in  arriving  at  a  conclusion,  from  not 
knowing  exactly  what  is  intended.  We  understand  what  is  meant 
when  it  is  said  that  the  lungs  are  the  principal  respiratory  organ, 
or  the  heart  the  chief  organ  of  the  circulating  system.  The  alter- 
nate expansion  and  contraction  of  these  viscera  produce  respira- 
tion and  circulation.  When  they  are  in  healthy  action,  the  pre- 
sence of  the  air  or  of  the  blood  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  the  pro- 
duction of  their  several  effects.  They  are,  therefore,  very  appro- 
priately called  the  organs  or  instruments  by  which  those  effects  are 
wrought.  So  long  as  the  vital  forces  animate  them  they  accom- 
plish their  ends  without  the  aid  or  concurrence  of  any  other  agent. 
It  will  not  be  maintained  that  the  brain  is,  in  this  sense,  the  organ 

*  We  have  omitted  purposely  one  argument  urged  by  Mr.  Combe,  and  repeated  by 
others,  in  defence  of  this  proposition.  He  asserts  that  "  consciousness  or  feeling 
localizes  the  mind  in  the  head,  and  gives  us  a  full  conviction  that  it  is  seated  there." 
If  Mr.  Combe  really  has  this  consciousness,  he  needs  no  better  evidence  than  it  3 
affords,  that  his  mind  thinks  by  help  of  his  brain,  but  this  gives  no  help  to  those 
of  us  who  are  unfortunately  not  conscious  of  the  locality  of  our  minds. 


PHRENOLOGY. 

of  thought  by  any  but  the  materialists.  We  can  see  a  fitness,  too, 
in  designating  the  eye  as  the  organ  of  vision,  and  the  ear,  the 
organ  of  hearing.  The  eye  is  evidently  and  expressly  constructed 
for  the  purpose  of  conveying  the  image  of  the  external  object  to 
the  retina  of  the  eye,  and  thus  producing  the  mental  state  called 
seeing.  It  is  directly  and  causatively  employed  by  the  mind  as  its 
instrument  in  every  act  of  vision.  And  since  the  eye,  the  ear,  and 
all  the  apparatus  of  the  external  senses,  communicate  by  their 
appropriate  nerves  with  the  brain,  we  are  led  to  suppose  that  the 
last  physical  state,  antecedent  to  the  mental  perception  of  external 
objects,  takes  place  in  this  apparent  centre  of  the  nervous  system  ; 
and  this  may  be  deemed  a  sufficient  reason  for  styling  the  brain, 
the  organ  of  sensation.  A  similar  ground  exists  for  supposing  that 
the  brain  is  the  necessary  instrument  of  the  mind  in  executing  such 
volitions  as  have  for  their  object  any  change  of  its  bodily  state. 
The  nerves  of  voluntary  motion  are  connected,  through  the  inter- 
vention of  larger  medullary  masses,  with  the  brain,  and  this  arrange- 
ment, together  with  some  corroborating  facts,  induces  us  to  sup- 
pose that  the  motive  impression  of  the  will  is  propagated  from  the 
brain  to  the  muscle  in  which  the  motion  takes  place.*  We  may 
consent,  on  this  account,  that  the  brain  should  be  called  the  organ 
of  the  mind  in  all  its  states  and  acts  which  connect  it  with  the 
material  world.  But  we  suppose  that  much  more  than  this  is 
meant  by  those  who  contend  for  the  unqualified  proposition  that 
the  brain  is  the  organ  of  the  mind.  Indeed  Mr.  Combe  illustrates 
the  sense  in  which  he  uses  these  terms  by  a  reference  to  the  eye  as 
the  organ  of  vision,  and  asserts  that  "  if  the  brain  be  the  organ  of 
the  mind,  it  will  follow  that  the  mind  does  not  act  in  this  life  inde- 
pendently of  its  organ,  and  hence  that  every  emotion  and  judg- 
ment of  which  we  are  conscious,  are  the  result  of  mind  and  its 
organ  acting  together  ;  and,  secondly,  that  every  mental  affection 
must  be  accompanied  by  a  corresponding  state  of  the  organ,  and 
vice  versa  every  state  of  the  organ  must  be  attended  by  a  certain 
condition  of  the  mind."  We  are  prepared  here  to  join  issue,  and 
maintain  that  we  have  no  sufficient  evidence  for  believing  that  the 
brain  is,  in  this  strict  sense,  the  organ  of  the  mind  in  all  its  opera- 

*  The  opinion  that  the  immediate  physical  antecedent  of  a  mental  sensation,  or 
the  immediate  physical  consequent  of  a  volition,  takes  place  in  the  brain,  is  by  no 
means  incontrovertible.  It  may  be  maintained,  and  with  much  plausibility,  that  the 
physical  state  which  exists  in  immediate  proximity  to  the  mental  one  is  in  the  nerves, 
while  the  office  of  the  brain  is  to  supply  that  influence,  whatever  it  may  be,  which 
maintains  the  vitality  of  the  nervous  system.  This  hypothesis  is  equally  consistent 
with  the  anatomical  structure  of  these  organs,  and  will  explain  equally  well,  most, 
if  not  all,  the  facts  of  the  case.  If  the  optic  nerve,  for  instance,  be  divided,  the 
power  of  vision  is  destroyed.  On  the  one  hypothesis  this  would  be  explained  by 
stating  that  the  image  on  the  retina  of  the  eye  no  longer  conveyed  to  the  brain  the 
impression  which  roust  necessarily  affect  that  organ  in  order  to  induce  the  mental  act 
or  state  of  vision.  On  the  other,  it  would  be  accounted  for  by  the  consideration,  that 
the  nerve,  being  dissevered  from  the  brain,  had  lost  its  vitality,  and  was  therefore 
incapable  of  discharging  its  appropriate  function  in  influencing  the  mind.  It  is  an 
extremely  difficult  matter  to  establish  the  proximate  relation  of  cause  and  effect 
between  our  mental  and  our  bodily  acts. 

S5 


386  PHRENOLOGY. 

tions.  When  the  mind  wills  to  move  the  arm,  we  are  ready  to 
admit  that  it  may  employ  the  brain  in  transmitting  the  motive 
impulse  to  the  muscle,  but  when  we  are  told  also  that  it  cannot 
frame  the  volition  itself,  without  some  previous  stimulus  or  concur- 
rent help  of  the  medullary  substance,  we  are  constrained  to  demand 
some  further  evidence  than  has  yet  been  given. 

The  law  of  continuity  which  is  said  to  prevail  throughout  the 
animal  creation,  connecting,  at  each  point  of  the  ascending  series, 
a  brain  of  more  elaborate  construction  with  higher  manifestations 
of  intelligence,  is  of  very  slender  force.  Such  laws  are  at  no 
point  of  the  scale  so  likely  to  be  interrupted  by  a  discontinuous 
instance  as  at  one  of  its  extremities.  The  law  of  gravitation, 
which  is  true  for  all  sensible  distances,  gives  place  to  some  other 
law  when  the  distance  between  the  attracting  particles  becomes 
insensible.  Admitting  the  instrumental  dependence  of  the  mind 
upon  the  brain,  in  the  inferior  animals,  are  we  entitled  to  infer 
from  this  that  the  mind  of  man  is  thus  dependent  upon  a  similar 
organ  ?  The  analogy  of  anatomical  structure  has  no  weight  in 
this  argument,  except  upon  the  assumption  of  analogous  functions. 
Bnt  is  there  such  an  analogy  between  the  acts  of  a  brute  in  the 
perception  of  external  objects,  or  in  any  of  its  manifestations  of 
intelligence,  and  the  movements  of  the  mind  of  man,  when  he  rea- 
sons upon  abstract  truths  and  principles  which  have  no  relation  to 
a  material  world,  or  when  he  feels  the  obligations  which  he  is 
under  to  virtue  and  truth,  that  the  same  instrument  which  is 
employed  in  the  production  of  the  one,  being  somewhat  more  ela- 
borately finished,  will  answer  for  working  out  the  other  ?  There 
is  not  more  difference  between  the  two  acts  of  seeing  and  hearing, 
than  exists  between  the  highest  instance  of  brute  intelligence,  and 
the  act  of  the  human  mind  in  adoring  and  loving  its  Creator.  But 
we  believe  that  the  eye,  however  exquisitely  finished,  can  never 
become  transformed  into  an  organ  of  hearing ;  and  why  should 
we  not  as  well  believe,  that  the  same  organ  which  is  employed  by 
the  brute  creation  in  their  low  and  limited  manifestations  of  intelli- 
gence, cannot  avail  for  the  higher  and  dissimilar  functions  of  the 
human  mind  ?  The  difference  in  kind  between  these  two  classes 
of  functions,  would  lead  us,  if  we  sought  any  material  organ  for 
the  latter,  not  to  look  for  one  more  exquisitely  finished  than  that 
employed  by  the  brutes,  but  for  one  entirely  diflferent.  The  greater 
complication  and  higher  finish  of  the  brain  of  man  are  sufficiently 
explained  by  the  greater  complexity  of  all  his  organs,  and  the 
higher  kind  of  animal  life  which  he  sustains.  Many  vital  arrange- 
ments are  completed  in  the  human  body,  of  which  we  find  only 
the  first  rudiments,  or  rough  sketches,  in  the  lower  animals.  We 
need  not,  however,  waste  words  in  showing  the  irrelevancy  of  the 
argument  from  the  uniform  proportion  between  the  degree  of  intel- 
ligence and  the  finish  of  the  brain  in  the  lower  animal,  since  the 
facts  themselves  from  which  the  argument  is  generalized  are  insuf- 
ficient to  sustain  it.     It  is  not  true  that  this  proportion  is  observed 


PHRENOLOGY.  387 

with  sufficient  uniformity  to  warrant  the  general  assertion.  The 
brain  of  the  beaver  is  not  more  elaborate  or  complicated  in  its 
structure,  nor  larger  in  its  proportions,  than  that  of  the  sheep. 
And,  as  if  in  mockery  of  this  hasty  generalization,  of  all  the  ani- 
mals with  which  we  are  acquainted,  the  bee  and  the  ant  perhaps 
mimic  most  closely  "  the  adaptive  functions"  of  the  human  under- 
standing. 

We  cannot  attach  much  importance  to  the  other  argument, 
drawn  from  the  correspondence  between  the  growth  and  decay  of 
the  brain,  and  the  progress  and  decline  of  the  intellectnal  faculties. 
This  argument,  it  will  be  seen,  derives  all  its  force  from  the  syn- 
chronism between  the  two  classes  of  phenomena,  but  this  syn- 
chronism is  not  invariable.  There  have  been  many  instances  of 
precocity  in  children,  whose  brains  presented,  upon  examination, 
the  usual  soft  anH  pulpy  appearance  ;  and  there  have  been  many 
old  men  who  have  preserved  their  mental  faculties  to  the  last  in 
an  unusual  degree,  and  whose  brains  have  been  found  as  dry  and 
hard  as  in  other  cases  where  the  powers  of  the  mind  have  almost 
entirely  disappeared.  These,  however,  are  exceptions.  The 
general  law  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  while  the  brain  is  undergo- 
ing one  series  of  changes,  the  mind  is  passing  through  another 
series.  But  is  this  sufficient,  even  if  invariable,  to  establish 
between  them  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect  ?  Certainly  not,  if 
there  be  any  other  hypothesis  than  that  of  their  mutual  depend- 
ence, which  will  equally  well  explain  the  facts.  There  is  nothing 
in  the  change  that  takes  place  in  the  brain,  that  seems  to  bear  a 
natural  relation  to  the  altered  functions  of  the  mind.  In  infancy, 
when  the  brain  is  pulpy,  the  child  is  a  creature  of  sensation ; 
when  the  brain  has  become  harder,  we  find  the  child  capable  of 
reflection  ;  but  we  can  discern  no  reason  in  the  anatomical  struc- 
ture of  the  organ,  why  a  hard  brain  is  any  more  fitted  than  a  soft 
one  for  the  instrument  of  reflection  ;  or  why,  when  it  has  become 
hardened  beyond  a  certain  point,  it  should  be  again  unfitted  for  this 
office.  The  structure  of  the  organ  does  not,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
eye  or  ear,  give  us  any  information  respecting  its  office.  There  is 
nothing  but  the  contemporaneous  occurrence  of  the  changes  in  the 
brain  and  the  mind,  from  which  we  can  infer  any  relation  between 
them.  But  something  more  than  this  is  necessary  to  prove  that 
they  are  connected  as  cause  and  effect.  Since  the  changes  which 
take  place  in  the  brain  are  but  part  of  a  train  of  changes  which  are 
going  on  throughout  the  vital  economy,  there  must  be  some  suffi- 
cient reason  for  selecting  them  as  exclusively  connected  with  the 
growth  of  the  mental  faculties.  No  such  reason  can  be  found. 
The  changes  in  the  brain,  and  in  the  mind,  may  both,  for  aught  we 
know  or  are  likely  to  know,  be  independent  eflects  of  some  third 
cause.  The  varying  state  of  the  mental  powers  from  infancy  to 
manhood,  and  from  manhood  to  old  age,  proves  that  the  mind  is  so 
connected  with  the  body  as  to  be  influenced  by  the  state  of  its 
vitality.    We  can  have  no  reason  for  believing  that  this  influence 


388  PHRENOLOGY. 

is  communicated  solely  through  the  brain,  unless  it  can  be  shown 
from  the  structure  or  other  functions  of  this  organ,  that  it  has  been 
adapted  to  fulfil  this  purpose  ;  or  unless  by  a  series  of  experiments 
we  can  eliminate  the  changes  in  the  brain  from  the  other  changes 
which  take  place  simultaneously  throughout  the  system.  It  has 
indeed  been  urged  that  we  are  acquainted  with  the  functions  of  all 
the  other  organs  of  the  body — that  each  part  has  its  particular 
office — that  the  use  of  the  brain  is  not  understood — and  that  if  it 
is  not  the  organ  of  the  mind,  "  there  is  left  for  it  nothing  to  do,  no 
purpose  to  answer  in  the  economy,  for  no  one  has  yet  suspected 
that  it  has  any  other  function  than  that  connected  with  mental 
manifestation."*  It  would  be  a  sad  thing  indeed  to  leave  an  organ 
of  such  rare  and  curious  construction  as  the  brain  with  nothing  to 
do,  but  there  have  been  very  violent  suspicions  that  it  has  some 
important  duties  to  perform  besides  assisting  the  mind  in  its  labours. 
Whether  in  partnership  with  the  mind  or  not,  it  carries  on  a  pretty 
important  business  on  its  own  account.  M.  Legallois  has  publish- 
ed a  learned  essay,  detailing  many  experiments,  all  going  to  prove 
that  the  principle  which  animates  each  part  of  the  body,  has  its 
seat  in  that  portion  of  the  medullary  substance  whence  its  nerves 
originate  ;  and  it  has  been  very  generally  supposed  that  what  has 
been  vaguely  called  the  nervous  influence,  subserved  important 
purposes  in  the  animal  economy.  Dr.  Wilson  Philip  has  attempted 
to  prove  that  secretion  is  due  to  nervous  influence ;  and  Magendie 
has  clearly  shown  that  the  nutrition  of  the  eye  depends  upon  the 
fifth  pair  of  nerves.  Though  great  obscurity  rests  upon  the 
functions  of  the  brain,  no  one  has  doubted  that  this  organ,  with  its 
associated  system  of  medulla,  spinal  marrow,  and  nerves,  distri- 
butes to  the  heart,  the  lungs,  and  through  the  whole  frame,  some 
influence  necessary  to  the  perfection  of  its  organic  life.  And  if 
this  were  not  so,  in  admitting  the  brain  to  be  the  organ  of  the  mind 
in  sensation,  and  in  producing  voluntary  motion,  we  have  assigned 
to  it  an  office  of  sufficient  importance  to  relieve  us  from  the  neces- 
sity of  finding  some  other  duty  for  it  to  perform. 

The  remarks  already  made  will  be  found  to  apply  to  the  other 
arguments  drawn  from  the  suspension  of  the  mental  powers  from 
injury  to  the  brain,  and  from  the  phenomena  of  idiotcy  and 
insanity.  The  brains  of  the  idiotic  and  the  insane  have  been 
examined  in  hundreds  of  cases,  and  in  by  far  the  greater  part  of 
them  there  has  been  found  no  peculiarity  of  organization,  no  altera- 
tion of  structure,  no  symptom  of  disease.  The  comatose  state 
produced  by  compression  of  the  brain  does  not  prove  that  the 
intellectual  faculties  depend  solely  upon  this  organ,  unless  it  can  be 
shown  that  no  other  part  of  the  body  suflTers  at  the  same  time  with 
the  brain.  The  intellect  may  possibly  be  connected  with  the  life 
of  the  body  at  some  other  point,  which,  by  the  injury  of  the  brain, 
has  lost  the  supply  of  an  influence  necessary  to  the  healthy  dis- 

•  Christian  Spectator,  vol.  vi.,  p.  504. 


PHRENOLOGY.  389 

charge  of  its  functions.  While  we  have  no  sufficient  reason,  there- 
fore, from  the  coincidence  between  an  injury  of  the  brain  and  the 
loss  of  intellect,  to  believe  that  the  one  is  the  immediate  cause  of 
the  other,  we  have,  on  the  other  hand,  many  facts  which  are  hardly 
reconcilable  with  the  doctrine  that  the  brain  is  the  organ  of  the 
mind.  This  organ  may  often  receive  the  most  extensive  injury 
without  any  detriment  to  the  mental  faculties.  Though  the  sudden 
effiision  into  its  substance  of  a  portion  of  blood,  not  larger  than  a 
pea,  is  often  followed  by  the  total  loss  of  consciousness,  yet  in  other 
cases,  large  tumours  have  been  found  in  the  encephalon,  which  must 
have  compressed  the  brain  for  years,  without  producing  the  least 
mental  defect  or  aberration.  Hydrocephalous  patients,  it  is  well 
known,  will  live  for  years  with  undiminished  mental  faculties, 
though  there  may  be  several  pounds  of  water  in  the  skull,  entirely 
displacing  the  brain,  and  compressing  it  greatly,  if  not  absorbing 
the  larger  part  of  its  substance.  Hundreds  of  cases  are  also  upon 
record  similar  to  the  one  of  which  we  have  recently  seen  an 
account,  reported  by  M.  Nobil  to  the  Medical  Society  at  Ghent.  A 
young  man  fired  a  pistol,  loaded  with  two  balls,  at  his  own  head. 
The  balls  passed  through  the  head  and  came  out  at  the  same  ori- 
fice, and  with  them  came  a  portion  of  the  brain  sufficient  ta  fill 
two  moderately-sized  tea  cups.  The  wound  was  dressed  for 
twenty-eight  days  successively,  and  at  each  dressing  a  portion  of 
the  brain  came  away.  He  recovered  from  the  injury,  with  no 
other  inconvenience  than  the  loss  of  sight.  His  intellectual  facul- 
ties were  unimpaired,  though  the  loss  of  cerebral  substance 
amounted  to  not  less  than  the  whole  of  the  left  anterior  lobe  of  the 
brain.*  If  the  brain  is  the  organ  of  the  mind,  it  is  difficult  to 
understand  how  it  can  receive  such  injuries,  occasioning  in  some 
cases  the  loss  of  even  half  its  substance,  without  interfering  at  all 
with  the  mental  operations.  Neither  the  heart,  the  liver,  nor  the 
lungs,  can  undergo  as  extensive  lesion  as  the  brain  has  often  suf- 
fered with  impunity,  without  destroying  all  the  manifestations  of 
mind.  It  is  by  no  means  characteristic  of  the  only  material  organs 
which  we  are  sure  that  the  mind  employs,  the  apparatus  of  the 
external  senses  and  of  voluntary  motion,  that  they  can  be  subjected 
to  great  mechanical  injury  without  interference  with  their  func- 
tions. Reasoning  by  analogy,  therefore,  from  the  only  fixed  and 
certain  point  in  our  knowledge  of  the  material  instruments  em- 
ployed by  the  mind,  we  should  be  led  to  doubt  whether  the  brain 
could  be  its  chief  organ. 

In  the  total  absence  of  any  conclusive  arguments  against  it,  this 
doubt  is  greatly  strengthened  by  the  a  'priori  probabilities  in  its 
favour.  The  mind  is  furnished  with  material  organs  to  assist  it  in 
all  its  operations  that  are  connected  with  matter.  We  can  see  a 
necessity  for  this  arrangement.  There  must  be  some  point  of 
transition  at  which  the  impressions  made  by  material  objects  shall 

*  New  Monthly  Magazine,  1837,  p.  144. 


39D  PHRENOLOGY. 

pass  into  mental  perceptions,  and. at  which  a  volition  to  move  any 
part  of  the  body  shall  commence  its  physical  effect.  Without 
instruments  properly  constructed  in  adaptation  to  the  susceptibili- 
ties of  the  mind  and  the  properties  of  matter,  we  must  have 
remained  for  ever  ignorant  of  the  external  world,  and  incapable  of 
producing  any  effect  upon  it.  But  we  can  see  no  fitness  in  the 
provisions  of  a  material  organ  for  carrying  on  purely  intellectual 
operations.  That  the  mind  cannot  execute  a  volition  to  move  any 
part  of  the  body  without  the  aid  of  the  brain  and  nerves  is  very 
certain  ;  but  we  can  discern  no  impediment  to  its  forming  the  voli- 
tion without  help  of  a  material  organ  ;  nay,  we  find  it  difficult  to 
conceive  that  it  can  need  any.*  And  it  would  surely  be  a  very 
anomalous  arrangement  if  the  same  organ  should  be  employed 
for  two  such  different  purposes  as  that  of  forming  and  then  exe- 
cuting the  volitions  of  the  mind. 

The  natural  expectation  which  we  should  be  disposed  to  form,  of 
the  independence  of  the  mind  upon  the  use  of  material  instru- 
ments for  its  spiritual  operations,  is  confirmed  by  our  not  finding 
in  the  body  any  organ  which  seems  to  be  fitted  for  this  office.  All 
the  organs  of  which  we  have  any  certain  knowledge,  have  an 
anatomical  structure  and  arrangement  which  disclose  their  purpose 
and  use.  But  we  find  nothing  in  the  structure  of  the  brain  which 
would  lead  us  to  infer  that  it  was  intended  to  assist  the  mind  in  its 
intellectual  and  moral  exercises.  The  only  safe  inference  which 
we  can  draw  from  the  anatomical  structure  of  the  nervous  appa- 
ratus is,  that  the  stomach,  heart,  lungs,  and  all  the  vital  organs, 
derive  directly  from  the  nerves,  or  through  them  from  the  brain, 
some  influence  which  assists  them  in  the  discharge  of  their  several 
offices  ;  and  that  the  nerves  in  like  manner,  either  immediately  or 
as  channels  of  communication  with  the  brain,  are  employed  by  the 
mind  in  the  perception  of  material  objects,  and  in  the  production 
of  voluntary  motion.  These  inferences  from  the  anatomical  affilia- 
tions and  dependencies  of  the  several  parts  of  the  bodily  system, 
have  been  confirmed  by  observation  and  experiment ;  and  the  dis- 
tinct offices  performed  by  some  portions  of  the  machinery  of  the 
nervous  system  have  been  discovered.  It  has  been  found  that  there 
are  nerves  dedicated  to  the  functions  of  sight,  of  smell,  and  of  hear- 
ing, and  that  they  are  severally  incapable  of  conveying  to  the  mind 
any  other  than  their  appropriate  impressions.  If  the  retina  of  the 
eye,  or  the  optic  nerve,  be  touched  or  lacerated,  the  only  sensation 
is  that  of  a  flash  of  light.     It  has  been  proved,  too,  by  Sir  Charles 

*  We  are  always  glad  when  we  can  strengthen  ourselves  by  the  high  authority  of 
Bishop  Butler,  and  we  therefore  quote,  as  pertinent  to  the  present  discussion,  the  fol- 
lowing passage  from  his  Analogy.  "For  though  from  our  present  constitution  and 
condition  of  being,  our  external  oi^ns  of  sense  are  necessary  for  conveying  in  ideas 
to  our  reflecting  powers — yet  when  these  ideas  are  brought  in,  we  are  capable  of 
reflecting  in  the  most  intense  degree,  and  of  enjoying  the  greatest  pleasure,  and  feel- 
ing the  greatest  pain,  by  means  of  that  reflection,  without  any  assistance  from  the 
senses ;  and  without  any  at  all,  that  we  know  of,  from  that  body  which  will  be  dis- 
solved at  death." 


PHRENOLOGY.  391 

Bell,  that  the  nerves  of  sensation  are  distinct  from  those  of  motion, 
and  that  the  former  communicate  with  the  brain  through  the  two 
posterior,  and  the  latter  through  the  two  anterior  columns  of  the 
spinal  medulla.  Except  these,  and  a  few  similar  facts,  nothing  is 
certainly  known  of  the  physiology  of  the  nervous  system  ;  and  of 
all  the  conjectures  which  have  been  hazarded,  that  which  supposes 
the  brain  to  be  an  instrument,  which,  by  the  play  of  its  medullary 
fibres,  or  the  molecular  action  of  its  globular  elements,  or  by  some 
other  mechanical  or  chemical  operation,  enables  the  mind  to  think, 
to  reason,  and  to  love,  is  the  most  preposterous  and  the  least  likely 
to  be  verified  in  the  further  progress  of  our  knowledge.  It  is  sup- 
ported by  no  analogy  from  what  we  already  know  of  the  functions 
of  the  brain,  and  of  the  dependency  of  the  mind  upon  material 
organs  ;  it  is  confirmed  by  nothing  that  anatomical  research  has 
disclosed  of  the  structure  and  collocation  of  the  brain,  with  its  sub- 
ordinate members  ;  and  the  facts  which  are  adduced  in  its  favour, 
lend  it  but  a  questionable  aid,  while  other  facts,  equally  well 
authenticated,  bear  their  testimony  against  it.  It  is,  at  best,  upon 
the  most  favourable  construction  of  its  claims,  but  a  doubtful 
hypothesis ;  and  the  age  has  passed  away  in  which  it  was  allowa- 
ble to  construct  a  science  upon  an  assumed  hypothesis. 

We  might  very  justly  rest  the  case  with  the  phrenologists  here, 
and  call  upon  them  for  further  proof  of  their  fundamental  position, 
that  the  brain  is  the  organ  of  the  mind.  But  we  may  admit  the 
truth  of  this  proposition,  and  yet  we  shall  find  darkness  and  doubt 
gathering  over  the  next  step.  It  is  worthy  of  special  observation 
that  the  science  of  phrenology  does  not  consist  of  a  set  of  compacted 
truths,  so  articulated  together  as  to  impart  mutual  support,  and 
establish  firmly,  by  their  combined  strength,  the  system  which 
they  compose ;  it  rests  upon  a  series  of  disconnected  propositions, 
in  such  a  manner  that  the  failure  of  any  one  destroys  the  whole 
superstructure.  Let  it  be  proved  that  the  brain  is  the  organ  of 
the  mind,  this  renders  us  no  assistance  in  establishing  the  next 
essential  doctrine,  that  the  vigour  of  the  intellectual  faculties  will 
be  in  proportion  to  the  size  of  this  organ.  Let  both  of  these  be 
true,  and  we  have  yet  to  prove  the  entirely  independent  proposi- 
tions, that  the  brain  is  composed  of  a  plurality  of  organs,  each  one 
devoted  to  the  elaboration  of  some  particular  faculty  or  sentiment, 
and  working  with  an  energy  proportioned  to  its  size.  Or  grant 
the  truth  of  all  the  previous  assumptions,  and  yet  the  whole  sci- 
ence will  be  destroyed,  unless  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  the  form 
of  the  brain  may  be  determined  by  the  external  configuration  of 
the  skull.  Every  one  of  its  doctrines  can  be  shown  to  be  doubt- 
ful, if  not  highly  improbable,  though  the  demonstrable  truth  of 
each  of  them  is  essential  to  the  integrity  of  the  system.  No  sci- 
ence ever  was  established,  nor  ever  can  be,  with  such  a  liability  to 
error  multiplying  at  every  step. 

The  doctrine  that  the  vigour  of  intellect  will  be  in  proportion  to 
the  size  of  the  brain,  is  supported  by  arguments  too  loose  and 


392  PHRENOLOGY. 

vague  to  deserve  a  place  in  a  process  of  serious  reasoning.  Those 
of  our  readers  who  have  never  examined  the  foundations  of  phre- 
nology, will  be  surprised  to  find  that  Mr.  Combe,  the  great  hiero- 
phant  of  its  mysteries,  can  produce  nothing  stronger  than  the  fol- 
lowing arguments  in  favour  of  this  important  proposition.  "  First, 
the  brain  of  the  child  is  small,  and  its  mental  vigour  weak,  com- 
pared with  the  brain  and  mental  vigour  of  an  adult.  Secondly, 
small  size  in  the  brain  is  an  invariable  cause  of  idiocy.  Phrenolo- 
gists have  in  vain  called  upon  their  opponents  to  produce  a  single 
instance  of  the  mind  being  manifested  vigorously  by  a  very  small 
brain.  Thirdly,  men  who  have  been  remarkable,  not  for  mere 
cleverness,  but  for  great  force  of  character,  such  as  Napoleon 
Bonaparte,  have  had  large  heads.  Fourthly,  it  is  an  ascertained 
fact,  that  nations  in  whom  the  brain  is  large,  possess  so  great  a 
mental  superiority  over  those  in  whom  that  organ  is  small,  that 
they  conquer  and  oppress  them  at  pleasure.  Lastly,  the  influence 
of  size  is  now  admitted  by  the  most  eminent  physiologists."  The 
last  of  these  arguments  we  shall  not  examine,  since  we  have  no 
disposition  just  now  to  search  for  the  conflicting  opinions  of  emi- 
nent physiologists,  and  an  appeal  to  authority  is  so  questionable  a 
procedure  in  establishing  the  foundations  of  a  science,  that  we 
cannot  consent  to  abide  by  its  issue.  The  other  reasons  are 
scarcely  worthy  of  consideration,  as  a  proof  of  the  influence  of  the 
size  of  the  brain  upon  the  strength  of  the  intellect.  Taken  at 
their  fullest  value,  they  create  only  a  very  slender  probability  in 
favour  of  the  opinion  in  question.  The  brain  of  the  child,  it  is  true, 
is  small,  when  compared  with  the  brain  of  the  adult,  but  it  is  also 
true  that  it  undergoes  other  changes  in  the  progress  from  infancy  to 
manhood,  quite  as  important  in  character  as  its  increase  of  size.  In 
the  foetus  the  brain  is  semi-fluid,  in  the  infant  it  is  still  so  soft  as  to 
be  almost  incapable  of  dissection,  and  it  becomes  gradually  more 
consistent  in  its  substance,  and  more  distinctly  marked  with  convolu- 
tions through  the  successive  years  of  youth.  The  addition  to  its 
volume  is  a  much  less  remarkable  circumstance  than  the  change 
in  its  character,  and  there  can  be  no  reason  therefore  for  selecting 
the  former  as  the  cause  of  the  increase  of  mental  vigour.  If  the 
phrenologist  replies  that  he  means  his  assertion  to  be  limited  by 
the  condition  of  "  other  things  being  equal,"  we  have  no  objection 
so  to  receive  and  discuss  it  ;  but  in  this  case  it  is  strange  that  the 
comparative  states  of  the  brain  and  the  mind,  in  the  infant  and 
the  adult,  should  be  brought  forward  as  an  argument,  when  it  is 
impossible  that  the  limiting  condition  can  take  place.  Other  things 
are  not  equal  in  the  infant  and  the  adult  brain,  and  the  phenomena 
exibited  by  its  two  states  can  of  course  have  no  bearing,  either  one 
way  or  the  other,  upon  the  doctrine  that  the  size  of  this  organ, 
ceteris  paribus^  determines  the  vigour  of  the  intellectual  manifesta- 
tions. 

But  we  are  further  told  that  a  small  brain  is  the  invariable  cause 
of  idiocy.     This  information  is  at  variance  with  the  notions  which 


PHRENOLOGY.  393 

we  should  naturally  form.     If  the  brain  is  the  organ  of  the  mind, 
we  should  expect  that  the  entire  deficiency  of  medullary  substance 
would  be  accompanied  by  complete  mental  imbecility,  but  that  a 
small  portion  of  it  would  be  attended  by  some  exhibitions  of  mind. 
Whv  should  not  a  small  instrument  suffice  the  mind  for  working 
out  small  results  ?     This  reasonable  expectation  must,  however, 
yield  to  experience  and  observation.     Has  it  then  been  ascertained 
that,  except  in  cases  of  disease,  a  small  brain  and  idiocy  are  inva- 
riably associated  together  ?     Such  has  not  been  the  result  of  our 
observation.     We  have  seen  idiots  whose  heads  were  of  a  very 
respectable  size,  and  some  even  in  whom  this  member  was  uncom- 
monly large.     The  heads  of  many  such  have  been  examined  after 
death,  and  no  symptoms  of  disease  in  the  structure  or  functions  of 
the  brain  have  been  discovered  ;  and  none  were  visible  during  life, 
unless,  by  a  petitio  principiij  the  idiocy  itself,  of  which  we  are 
seeking  the  cause,  is  to  be  taken  as  evidence  of  a  diseased  brain. 
There  have  been  many  instances,  too,  in  which  idiocy  has  been 
produced  by  a  moral  cause,  as  in  the  following  case,  reported  by 
Pinel.     Two  brothers,  conscripts  in  Napoleon's  army,  were  fight- 
ing side  by  side,  when  one  of  them  was  shot  dead.     The  other 
was  instantly  struck  with  complete  idiocy,  and,  upon  being  taken 
home,  another  brother  was  so  aflfected  by  the  sight  of  him,  that  he 
was  immediately  seized  in  like  manner.     In  such  cases  the  size  of 
the  brain  remains  unaltered,  and  there  can  be  no  other  disease  than 
one  of  function.      It  is  indeed  barely  possible  that  the  mental 
emotion  may  act  injuriously  upon  the  brain,  and  this  organ  then 
re-act  upon  the  mind,  but  it  is  to  the  last  degree  improbable,  and 
there  is  no  necessity  for  supposing  this  order  of  sequences  to  take 
place,  except  the  necessity  that  phrenology  should  be  true.     These 
cases  are  decisive  of  the  question,  so  far  as  the  argument  from 
idiocy  is  concerned.     They  show  that  while  the  brain  has  remained 
in  statu  quo,  unchanged  in  size,  and,  so  far  as  we  have  any  evi- 
dence, free  from  any  organic  or  functional  disease,  the  mind  has 
passed  from  a  state  of  activity  to  one  of  complete  torpor.     Nor  are 
there  wanting  countervailing  facts  at  the  other  end  of  the  argu- 
ment.   Not  only  do  we  find  idiocy  connected  with  a  large  brain, 
I  but  we  are  met  also  by  numerous  instances  of  vigorous  intellect 
where  the  brain  is  unusually  small.     In  proof  of  this  we   shall 
content  ourselves,  and  we  presume  satisfy  our  readers,  with  the 
testimony  of  Professor  Warren,  as  given  by  Dr.  Sewall.     This 
distinguished  anatomist  has  had,  in  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Sewall,  as 
great  opportunities  for  dissecting  the  brains  of  literary  and  intel- 
lectual men  of  high  grade,  and  of  comparing  these  with  the  brains 
of  men  in  the  lower  walks  of  life,  as  any  anatomist  of  our  country, 
if  not  of  the  age.     The  result  of  his  observation  is,  "  that  in  some 
instances  a  large  brain  had  been  connected  with  superior  mental 
powers,  and  that  the  reverse  of  this  was  true  in  about  an  equal 
number.      One  individual  who  was  most   distinguished   for   the 
variety  and  extent  of  his  native  talent,  had,  it  was  ascertained 


394  PHRENOLOGY. 

after  death,  an  uncommonly  small  brain."  Dr.  Sewall  adds,  that 
the  experience  of  eminent  anatomists  of  all  times  and  countries, 
who  have  paid  attention  to  the  subject,  will  be  found  in  strict 
accordance  with  that  of  Doctor  Warren.  But  let  us  now  grant 
what  we  have  shown  to  be  not  true,  that  the  facts  of  the  case  are 
as  stated  by  Mr.  Combe,  and  it  will  nevertheless  be  seen  that  his 
inference  from  them  is  altogether  unwarrantable.  Though  it 
should  be  true  that  a  small  brain  was  invariably  connected  with  a 
feeble  intellect  or  entire  idiocy,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the 
diminutive  size  of  this  organ  is  the  cause  of  the  mental  deficiency. 
How  can  it  be  ascertained  that  the  small  development  of  the  brain 
is  not  itself  caused  by  the  original  feebleness  of  the  intellect  ?  Or 
how  shall  it  be  proved  that  the  smallness  of  the  brain  and  the 
feebleness  of  the  intellect  are  not  both  produced  by  some  early 
defect  in  the  kind  of  action,  whatever  it  may  be,  chemical  or 
mechanical,  which  must  take  place  in  the  brain  to  assist  the  mind 
in  its  intellectual  operations  ? 

Mr.  Combe  can  hardly  be  considered  more  fortunate  in  his  third 
argument  for  the  influence  of  the  size  of  the  brain.  All  men,  he 
asserts,  who  have  been  distinguished  for  great  force  of  character, 
as  Napoleon  Bonaparte,  have  had  large  heads.  If  the  remark  is 
intended  to  be  confined  to  men  of  the  same  grade  of  character 
with  Bonaparte,  we  deny  that  we  have  the  necessary  knowledge 
of  a  sufficient  number  of  heads  to  afford  ground  for  a  general 
induction.  We  presume  there  are  no  authentic  casts  of  the  heads 
of  Alexander,  Julius  Caesar,  Hannibal,  or  Mohammed.  We  know 
not  how  we  are  to  gauge  the  skulls  of  the  mighty  conquerors  of 
past  ages ;  and  in  the  present,  there  are  not  enough  who  can  be 
placed  in  the  same  category  with  Bonaparte  to  warrant  us  in  infer- 
ring any  connexion  between  the  magnitude  of  their  heads,  and 
the  greatness  of  their  achievements.  If  the  assertion  is  not  to  be 
so  strictly  limited  by  the  instance  adduced,  it  is  effectually  turned 
aside  by  the  testimony  which  we  have  already  adduced  to  prove 
that  high  intellectual  ability  is  as  often  found  in  connexion  with  a 
small  as  with  a  large  brain. 

But  it  is  an  ascertained  fact  that  nations,  in  whom  the  brain  is 
large,  have  always  conquered  and  oppressed  at  pleasure  those  who 
were  so  unfortunate  as  to  have  smaller  heads.  When,  and  by 
whom,  has  this  important  historical  fact  been  ascertained  ?  The 
only  confirmation  of  it  given  by  Mr.  Combe  is  the  subjugation  of 
the  Hindoos,  and  the  native  Americans,  by  Europeans.  Are  these 
two  instances  sufficient  to  establish  a  general  truth  ?  Had  the 
Romans  larger  brains  than  the  Greeks,  and  the  Goths  still  larger 
than  the  Romans  ?  When  the  many  nations  that,  in  the  history 
of  our  race,  have  stood  in  their  pride  of  place,  with  their  feet  upon 
the  necks  of  others,  have  been  overthrown,  and  reduced  to  a  state 
of  dependence  or  servitude,  has  it  been  owing  to  a  gradual 
decrease  in  the  size  of  their  skulls  ?  Have  we  any  reason  for 
believing  that  the  heads  of  the  ancient  Egyptians  diminished  after 


PHRENOLOGY.  395 

the  time  of  Sesostris  ?  Were  the  brains  of  the  Moors  smaller 
when  expelled  from  Spain  than  they  were  at  the  period  of  its  sub- 
jugation ?  Are  the  heads  of  the  Popes,  since  Luther's  day,  more 
diminutive  than  those  which  enabled  the  Urbans  and  Gregories  to 
domineer  at  will  over  Christendom  ?  If  this  fact  be  indeed  ascer- 
tained, then  is  your  grave-digger  the  only  true  historian.  National 
pride  may  have  led  to  the  forgery  of  boastful  records,  but  the 
skulls  of  the  past  generations,  if  we  can  but  find  them,  will  give  us 
a  true  account  of  the  relative  position  of  the  people  to  whom  they 
belonged.  The  chamel  house  and  the  mummy  pit  are  the  true 
depositories  of  the  secrets  of  the  past. 

Such  are  the  arguments  by  which  the  most  learned  and  able  of 
the  advocates  of  phrenology  establishes  one  of  its  fundamental 
truths.  We  will  engage  to  prove,  by  a  train  of  reasoning  equally 
j  sound,  that  any  other  variable  attribute  of  the  human  body,  the 
colour  of  the  hair,  or  the  projection  of  the  nose,  is  the  true  origi- 
nal cause  of  the  different  degrees  of  intellect  observable  among 
men.  But  hberality  of  concession  in  argument  with  the  phrenolo- 
gists is  so  small  a  virtue,  that,  without  any  danger  of  self-elation, 
we  may  again  grant  all  that  they  ask.  Supposing  it  then  to  be 
demonstrated,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  or  captious  cavil,  that 
the  brain  is  the  organ  of  the  mind  and  that  its  size  determines 
the  vigour  of  all  intellectual  manifestations,  what  light  have  we 
to  guide  us  in  our  further  advance  ? 

The  brain,  we  are  told,  is  a  congeries  of  organs,  thirty-five  at 
least  in  number,  each  appropriated  to  the  service  of  some  faculty, 
sentiment  or  propensity  of  the  mind,  and  proportioned  in  size  to 
the  vigour  of  the  intellectual  property  which  is  manifested  through 
its  agency.  Each  of  these  organs  is  supposed  to  be  double,  com- 
posed of  two  cone-shaped  portions  of  medullary  substance,  which 
have  their  origin  at  the  base  of  the  brain,  and  thence  extend  to 
opposite  points  of  its  outer  surface.  In  proof  of  this  plurality  of 
organs,  we  might  reasonably  expect  to  be  furnished  with  some 
evidence  from  the  anatomical  structure  of  the  brain.  But  it  is  not 
even  pretended  that  any  such  exists.  When  the  integuments  of 
the  brain  are  removed,  its  surface  is  seen  to  be  marked  by  convo- 
lutions, separated  from  each  other  by  grooves,  more  or  less  deep ; 
but  these  convolutions  have  no  correspondence  in  size,  position,  or 
form,  with  the  organs  of  the  phrenologists.  The  brain  has  been, 
in  thousands  of  instances,  subjected  to  the  most  rigid  examina- 
tion ;  chemical  tests  of  all  kinds  have  been  applied  to  it,  and  the 
microscope  has  been  called  in  to  aid  in  the  scrutiny,  and  yet 
there  has  been  nothing  found  to  warrant  the  belief,  nor  even  to 
create  a  surmise,  that  it  is  composed  of  a  number  of  distinct  organs. 
Whether  the  brain  is  or  is  not  thus  divided  into  thirty-five  organs 
is  an  anatomical  fact,  and  it  must  be  decided  by  the  scalpel  of  the 
dissecting  room.  Mere  abstract  reasoning,  upon  general  pro- 
babilities, or  by  analogy  from  the  single  functions  of  our  other 


396  PHRENOLOGY. 

organs,  except  it  be  for  the  purpose  simply  of  forming  a  conjec- 
ture to  guide  in  the  anatomical  examination,  is  utterly  out  of  the 
question,  and  can  serve  no  other  purpose  then  to  make  known  the 
stupidity  of  the  reasoner.  It  is  at  all  times  a  sufficient  refutation 
of  what  purports  to  be  the  statement  of  a  fact,  to  show  that  the 
only  kind  of  evidence  by  which  the  fact  could  possibly  be  ascer- 
tained does  not  exist.  And  we  maintain  it  to  be  utterly  impossible 
to  prove  that  the  brain  is  divided,  as  the  phrenological  hypothesis 
supposes,  in  any  other  way  than  by  discovering  the  evidences  of 
such  division  in  the  structure  of  the  brain.  Should  any  one  pro- 
pose to  examine,  as  indeed  Flourens,  Bouillaud,  Rolando,  and 
others  have  done,  whether  the  cerebrum,  the  cerebellum,  the 
thalami  optici,  the  corpora  striata,  the  medulla  oblongata,  had  each 
a  distinct  office  to  perform,  we  should  listen  respectfully  to  the 
account  of  his  experiments,  and  to  the  arguments  founded  upon 
them.  These  are  distinct  portions  of  the  brain,  some  of  them 
separated  by  an  interposed  membrane  from  others,  and  all  of  them 
capable  of  separate  anatomical  demonstration ;  and  it  is  possible 
that  they  may  preside  over  different  functions.  But  when  the 
phrenologist  offers  to  explain  the  distinct  offices  of  thirty-five 
separate  organs  in  the  brain,  it  could  hardly  be  deemed  an  incivili- 
ty if  we  flatly  refused  to  hear  one  word  of  his  explanation,  until 
he  had  first  proved  the  existence  of  the  organs  in  question.  But 
instead  of  any  such  proof,  we  are  told,  that  since  the  mind  exercises 
different  faculties  there  must  be  different  organs,  by  means  of  which 
they  operate.  Because  of  a  difference  between  two  mental  affec- 
tions, we  are  to  believe  that  each  of  them  has  its  own  separate 
cone  of  the  brain  wherewith  to  work  out  its  effects,  although  we 
have  the  evidence  of  our  senses  that  no  such  conical  organs  exist. 
It  is  impossible  for  the  wit  of  man  to  frame  thirty-five  different 
classes  of  mental  phenomena,  in  which  many  of  the  lines  of  divi- 
sion shall  not  be  shadowy  and  evanescent ;  and  yet  on  the  ground 
of  these  uncertain  distinctions  we  must  believe  that  there  are  thirty- 
five  separate  cones,  though  no  symptom  of  the  existence  of  any 
one  of  them  can  be  discovered.  We  are  not  yet  quite  ready  for 
this;  and  we  hope  not  to  be  chided  for  our  unbelief;  perhaps  we 
may  be  better  prepared  for  it,  after  we  have  gone  through  a  course 
of  discipline  in  homoeopathy  and  animal  magnetism. 

No  traces  of  separate  organs  in  the  brain,  not  the  least  vestige 
of  any  internal  fibrous  structure  at  all  correspondent  to  them,  was 
ever  supposed  to  exist  until  Dr.  Gall's  theory  rendered  it  neces- 
sary to  imagine  them.  With  singular  hardihood,  he  proceeded  to 
map  out  the  skull  into  portions  answering  to  the  termination  of  his 
twenty-eight  internal  cones  of  brain,  while  in  the  profoundest 
ignorance  of  the  real  structure  of  this  organ.  We  are  aware  that 
we  are  somewhat  singular  in  bringing  this  charge  of  ignorance 
against  Dr.  Gall.  It  has  become  quite  fashionable,  in  controverting 
the  doctrines  of  the  phrenologists,  to  laud  them  for  their  valuable 


PHRENOLOGY.  397 

contributions  to  physiological  science.*  We  do  not  profess  to  be 
very  learned  in  these  matters,  but  in  what  we  have  said  of  Dr. 
Gall  we  lean  upon  the  testimony  of  one,  who  ot  all  living  men  is 
perhaps  best  entitled  to  speak  authoritatively  upon  this  subject. 
Sir  Charles  Bell,  in  the  Philosophical  Transactions  for  1823,  thus 
speaks  of  the  great  founder  of  the  sect.  "  But  the  most  extrava- 
gant departure  from  all  the  legitimate  modes  of  reasoning,  though 
still  under  the  colour  of  anatomical  investigation,  is  the  system  of 
Dr.  Gall.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  without  comprehending  the 
^rand  divisions  of  the  nervous  system ;  without  any  notion  of  the 
distinct  properties  of  the  individual  nerves  ;  or  without  having  made 
any  distinction  of  the  columns  of  the  spinal  marrow ;  without  even 
having  ascertained  the  difference  of  cerebrum  and  cerebellum  ; 
Gall  proceeded  to  describe  the  brain  as  composed  of  many  parti- 
cular and  independent  organs,  and  to  assign  to  each  the  residence 
of  some  special  faculty."  Though  Dr.  Gall's  successors  may  have 
better  understood  the  anatomy  of  the  brain,  they  have  as  yet  given 
us  no  better  reason  than  the  original  metaphysical  necessity  for 
believing  that  there  are  separate  cone-shaped  portions  of  matter, 
where  our  senses,  however  acutely  exercised,  cannot  discover 
them. 

And  what  are  the  reasons  given,  for  believing,  in  opposition  to 
our  senses,  the  constituted  judges  of  material  existences,  that  the 
brain  is  composed  of  separate  organs  ?  We  are  informed  in  the 
first  place,  that  the  liver  secretes  bile,  the  stomach  digests  food, 
that  every  organ,  in  short,  performs  but  a  single  office,  and  it  is 
therefore  contrary  to  analogy  to  suppose  that  in  the  different  opera- 
tions of  the  mind  the  same  organ  is  employed.  None  but  the  merest 
sciolist  need  be  told  that  analogy,  in  searching  into  the  unknown  pro- 
cess of  nature,  is  at  best  an  uncertain  guide,  and  that  its  only  use 
is  to  furnish  us  with  hints  and  probabilities  of  what  may  happen,  to 
stimulate  and  guide  us  in  our  search.  But  least  of  all  are  analo- 
gical deductions  worthy  of  confidence,  when  they  are  applied  to  a 
department  of  nature  widely  different  from  the  one  from  which 
they  are  drawn.  The  liver,  the  lungs,  the  stomach,  and  the  other 
bodily  organs,  under  the  stimulus  of  the  vital  forces,  produce  their 
several  mechanical  or  chemical  effects.     They  act  upon  matter,  and 

*  We  have  even  met  with  an  eulogium  upon  the  phrenologists  for  the  benefits  they 
have  rendered  to  the  cause  of  education,  and  the  general  improvement  of  society. 
And  to  prove  that  there  was  no  exaggeration  in  this  praise,  reference  was  made  to 
Mr.  Combe's  work,  "  On  the  constitution  of  man  considered  in  relation  to  external 
objects," — surely  a  most  unfortunate  illustration.  The  great  object  of  Mr.  Combe  in 
this  work  is  to  show  that  man  has  been  made  subject  to  three  classes  of  laws,  physi- 
cal, organic,  and  those  which  characterize  an  intelligent  and  moral  being  ;  and  that 
suffering  is  the  penalty  for  violating  any  of  these  laws.  In  other  words,  if  he  steps 
over  a  precipice  he  will  fall,  and  injure  himself— if  he  overloads  his  stomach  he  will 
suffer  from  indigestion— and  if  he  is  cruel,  his  bump  of  benevolence  will  take  offence 
and  hurt  him.  Strip  this  book  of  its  phrenological  cant,  and  it  will  be  found  to  con- 
tain only  stale  truisms,  some  of  which  are  known  to  the  child  after  a  few  of  his  first 
falls,  others  from  the  time  he  has  been  made  sick  by  eating  green  fruit,  and  all,  when 
he  has  read  Butler's  Sermons  on  Human  Nature,  and  any  elementary  treatise  on 
Political  Economy.  tXKisJtj 


398  PHRENOLOGY. 


f 


their  product  is  material.  Can  we  expect  these  organs  then  to 
furnish  us  with  any  analogies  that  can  shed  light  upon  the  action 
of  an  organ  which  does  not  act  by  itself,  but  in  direct  connexion 
with  the  mind,  and  which  produces  not  a  material,  but  a  spiritual 
effect  ?  We  would  much  rather  take  our  chance  of  lighting  on 
some  useful  discovery,  in  company  with  the  German  scholar 
who  has  applied  the  law  of  gravitation  to  elucidate  the  mysteries  '• 
of  Greek  metre. 

If  the  phrenologists  still  adhere  to  their  analogical  argument,  we 
should  be  disposed  to  try  upon  them  the  practice  of  another  sect 
of  German  origin.  The  same  thing  that  has  made  us  sick,  it  is 
said,  will  make  us  well  again  ;  or  according  to  the  poetic  mythos 
which  first  shadowed  forth  the  doctrine,  the  man  who  has  scratched 
out  both  his  eyes  by  jumping  into  a  bramble  bush,  will  scratch  them 
in  again  by  jumping  into  the  same  bramble  bush.  Let  us  try  then 
a  similar  specimen  of  analogical  reasoning.  All  the  organs  if  the 
body,  which  perform  different  functions,  are  widely  different  from 
each  other  in  form,  structure,  and  substance.  The  eye  bears  no 
resemblance  to  the  ear,  nor  the  heart  to  the  lungs,  nor  either  of 
these  to  the  liver  or  the  spleen.  Let  any  of  these,  or  any  con- 
siderable portion  of  one  of  them,  be  dissevered  from  the  rest  and 
presented  to  an  anatomist,  he  will  at  once  identify  it.  What  then 
can  be  more  certain  than  that  the  mental  organs,  the  separate  exist- 
ence of  which  is  inferred  from  the  difference  of  their  functions, 
must,  for  the  same  reason,  be  dissimilar  in  their  appearance  and 
their  internal  mechanism  ?  We  have  the  same  argument  for  their 
distinct  and  recognisable  unlikeness,  that  we  have  for  their  exist- 
ence. But  unfortunately  these  organs  are  all  alike  in  their  form 
and  substance.  Precisely  the  same  kind  of  medullary  matter,  and 
fashioned  into  the  same  shape,  will  work  out  love  or  murder,  arithmetic 
and  algebra,  or  Greek  and  Hebrew,  veneration  for  the  Deity  or 
destruction  to  a  street  lamp,  according  to  its  position  within  the 
skull.  Our  analogy  is  however  as  good  as  theirs,  and  if  they  insist 
upon  different  organs,  we  shall  insist  upon  a  substantial  difference 
of  structure  between  them.  Not  much  subtlety  is  requisite  to 
involve  the  phrenologists  in  any  number  of  like  absurdities,  by 
following  their  own  line  of  argument,  and  without  pressing  it  beyond 
the  limits  to  which  their  example  leads  us. 

The  unexplained  mysteries  of  sleep,  dreaming,  and  somnambu- 
lism, are  also  pressed  into  the  service  of  the  phrenologist.  These 
wonders  are  all  easily  explained  by  the  consideration  that  some  of  the 
organs  are  active,  while  others  are  in  repose,  whereas,  "  were  the 
organ  of  mind  single,  says  Mr.  Combe,  it  is  clear  that  all  the  facul- 
ties should  be  asleep  or  awake  to  the  same  extent  at  the  same 
time."  It  is  no  more  clear  to  us  that  all  the  faculties  should  be 
awake  or  asleep  together,  than  it  is  that  all  the  organs  should  follow 
the  same  law  ;  and  it  strikes  us  as  really  surprising  that  any  man 
of  common  penetration  should  imagine  that  he  had  at  all  sim- 
plified the  difficulty  of  this  case,  by  stating  that  some  of  the  mental 


n^^^ 


PHRENOLOGY.  399 


organs  happen  to  fall  asleep  while  others  keep  awake.  All  the 
facts  can  be  as  well  explained,  better  indeed,  by  the  imperfect  action 
of  one  organ  modified  by  the  periodical  state  of  the  system,  than 
by  the  hypothesis  of  different  organs,  some  of  which  are  standing 
sentinel  over  their  sleeping  comrades,  and  meanwhile  playing  all 
sorts  of  fantastic  vagaries. 

Another  proof  is  afforded  by  the  fact,  "  that  genius  is  almost 
always  partial,  which  it  ought  not  to  be  if  the  organ  of  the  mind 
were  single."  When  bald  assertions  of  this  kind  are  given  out  as 
arguments,  and  the  premises  to  which  they  lead  boldly  assumed, 
there  can  be  no  difficulty  in  constructing  new  sciences  at  pleasure. 
Philosophy  may  rock  herself  again  in  the  cradle  and  dream  true 
sciences  without  end.  We  are  utterly  unable  to  see  why  an  apti- 
tude for  excelling  in  particular  pursuits  may  not  as  well  be  owing 
to  some  peculiar  condition  of  one  organ,  as  to  the  comparative 
state  of  different  organs  ;  nor  can  we  perceive  why  the  diversities 
of  talent  which  we  observe  among  men,  may  not  be  still  better 
accounted  for,  than  on  either  of  these  hypotheses,  by  supposing  an 
original  disparity  of  mind.  We  have  not  the  least  ground  furnished 
by  abstract  reasoning  upon  the  nature  of  the  mind,  and  surely 
none  from  observation,  for  believing  that  all  minds  are  alike  in 
their  original  susceptibilities  and  powers. 

The  phenomena  of  partial  insanity  are  also  said  to  contradict 
the  notion  of  a  single  organ  of  the  mind.  It  will  not  be  expected, 
under  this  head,  that  we  should  discuss  the  adjudged  case  of  the- 
man  who  heard  angels  sing  with  one  side  of  his  head,  and  devils 
roar  with  the  other.  Nor  yet  that  of  the  worthy  clergyman  of 
Spurzheim  who  was  insane  on  the  left  side  of  his  head,  while  with 
the  right  side  he  perceived  the  insanity  of  the  left,  and  who,  though 
cured,  had  a  recurrence  of  this  one-sided  insanity  whenever  he  got 
drunk.  Phrenology  is  welcome  to  all  the  aid  it  derives  from  these 
cases,  and  they  are  the  only  ones  with  which  we  are  acquainted 
that  lend  it  any  support.  Very  often,  in  partial  insanity,  a  single 
hallucination  is  visible,  while  in  all  other  respects  and  upon  all 
other  subjects  the  mind  acts  with  its  usual  clearness  and  precision ; 
and  in  no  case  that  has  come  within  our  knowledge  has  there  been 
anything  like  a  complete  disorder  of  any  one  faculty  or  set  of 
faculties.  Instead  then  of  giving  countenance  to  the  phrenological 
theory,  they  constitute  an  unanswerable  argument  against  it.  If 
this  theory  be  true,  the  insanity  which  affects  one  organ  ought  to 
affect  all  the  operations  of  that  organ,  unless  we  are  to  suppose 
that  every  particular  fibre  in  that  organ  has  its  separate  duty,  that 
ev^ry  particle  of  matter  is  consecrated  to  some  one  thought.  To 
carry  out  the  phrenological  explanation  of  the  phenomena  of  partial 
insanity,  we  must  have  as  many  organs  as  there  are  thoughts  that 
pass  through  our  minds,  and  objects  upon  which  we  look.  Insanity 
sometimes  manifests  itself  in  an  unreasonable  and  unnatural  dislike 
to  a  single  individual,  while  the  affections,  in  all  other  respects, 
seem  to  flow  equably  in  their  usual  channels.     This  ought  to  result 


400  PHRENOLOGY. 

therefore  from  the  disease  of  an  organ  for  loving  that  one  person. 
There  is  a  case  reported  by  Pinel,  of  an  ingenious  mechanic  of 
Paris,  whose  only  symptoni  of  insanity  consisted  in  the  beUef  that 
he  had  been  guillotined  in  company  with  several  others,  and  that 
when  the  judges,  repenting  of  their  cruelty,  ordered  his  head  to  be 
replaced,  the  wrong  head  was  unfortunately  put  upon  his  shoulders. 
He  ever  afterwards  believed  that  he  was  wearing  another  man's 
head.  The  difficulty  here  could  not  have  been  in  the  organ  which 
is  imagined  to  supply  us  with  the  feeling  of  personal  identity,  for 
the  man  had  no  doubt  that  he  was  still  the  same  person,  his  only 
mistake  was  in  relation  to  the  sameness  of  his  head.  We  cannot 
account  for  this  in  consistency  with  the  demands  of  phrenology, 
but  by  supposing  that  there  is  an  organ  whose  sole  prerogative  it 
is  to  teach  us  the  identity  of  our  heads.  It  is  singular  that  Mr. 
Combe  could  be  so  blind  as  to  wind  up  his  argument  on  this  sub- 
ject with  the  question,  if  there  be  but  a  single  organ  of  the  mind 
how  comes  that  organ  to  be  able  to  manifest  one  but  not  all  the 
faculties  ?  What  more  obvious  than  to  ask  in  reply,  how  comes  it 
that  one  of  your  detached  organs  should  be  able  to  work,  on  behalf 
of  its  faculty,  with  perfect  soundness  on  some  subjects,  but  not 
upon  all  ?  To  carry  out  his  objection,  and  give  phrenology  the 
advantage  claimed  for  it,  he  must  multiply  the  mental  organs  till 
they  equal  in  number  the  hairs  of  the  head. 

This  is  not  the  only  instance  in  which  the  phrenologists  have 
seized  upon  a  weak  point,  and  attempted  to  convert  it  into  a  defence. 
The  effect  of  partial  injuries  to  the  brain  is  also  maintained  to  be  in 
favour  of  their  theory.  The  brain,  as  we  have  already  remarked, 
may  often  receive  considerable  injury  without  any  detriment  to  the 
mental  powers,  and  it  appears  strange,  says  Mr.  Combe,  if  the 
whole  brain  is  a  single  organ,  that  all  the  processes  of  thought 
should  be  manifested  with  equal  success,  when  a  considerable  por- 
tion of  it  has  been  destroyed.  "  The  phrenologists,"  he  adds,  "  are 
reduced  to  no  such  strait  to  reconcile  the  occurrence  of  such  cases 
with  their  system  ;  for  as  soon  as  the  principle  of  a  plurality  of 
organs  is  acknowledged,  they  admit  of  an  easy  and  satisfactory 
explanation.  What  that  explanation  is,  he  does  not  inform  us, 
and  we  are  left  to  conclude  that  this  paradoxical  trifling  is  put 
forth  for  the  same  reason  that  sometimes  leads  a  man  who  is  inly 
trembling  with  cowardice  to  affect  the  braggadocio.  Nothing 
can  more  completely  demonstrate  the  utter  falsity  of  the  phre- 
nological theory,  than  the  effect  of  these  same  partial  injuries 
of  the  brain.  Were  all  other  presumptive  evidence  against  it 
removed,  that  which  arises  from  this  source  would  be  sufficient  to 
prove  its  unsoundness.  We  have  attested  cases  of  injury  of  the 
brain  in  which  portions  of  this  organ,  varying  greatly  in  size  and 
position,  have  been  destroyed.  Every  one  of  the  phrenological 
organs  has  been  in  turn  annihilated  or  greatly  injured,  and  yet  in  no 
one  case  does  it  appear  that  the  corresponding  faculty  was  in  the 
least  debilitated.    In  the  list  of  cases  drawn  up  by  Haller,  and  subse- 


PHRENOLOGY. 


^tt 


quently  extended  by  Dr.  Feriar,  and  among  the  hundreds  of  like 
cases  which  have  been  reported  by  the  most  respectable  medical 
authorities,  we  have  accounts  of  injuries  which  cover  the  seat  of 
all  the  faculties,  and  which  have  yet  left  the  mental  vigour  undimi- 
nished. If  it  be  strange  then,  that  the  brain,  being  supposed  to  be  the 
single  organ  of  the  mind,  should  work  as  efficiently  when  partially 
destroyed  as  when  entire,  shall  it  be  thought  less  strange  that  all 
the  faculties  should  get  on  quite  as  well  when  their  several  organs 
are  entirely  gone  ?  Nothing  more  conclusive  need  be  desired. 
That  large  portions  of  the  brain  can  be  removed,  and  their  loss 
not  be  at  all  felt,  does  indeed  cast  doubt  upon  the  opinion  that  the 
brain  is,  strictly  speaking,  the  organ  of  the  mind ;  it  renders  more 
than  doubtful  the  doctrine,  that  the  quantity  of  the  brain  is  the 
measure  of  the  intellect ;  but  it  proves,  beyond  all  question,  that 
the  fancied  organs  of  the  phrenologists  have  no  existence. 

All  their  explanations  on  this  point  are  feeble  and  unsatisfactory. 
They  talk  of  the  difficulty  of  estimating  the  degree  in  which  any 
faculty  is  manifested,  so  as  to  compare  accurately  the  mental 
condition  of  the  patient  before  and  after  the  injury,  forgetting  that 
this  same  difficulty  must  have  beset  them,  with  ten-fold  force,  in 
making  the  observations  which  have  led  to  the  location  of  the 
different  faculties,  and  that  if  it  is  of  any  avail  in  disparagement  of 
the  testimony  in  question,  it  must  operate  with  equal  force  to 
impeach  the  credit  of  their  whole  system. 

The  hypothesis  of  double  organs  is  also  appealed  to  in  explana- 
tion of  the  difficulties  of  this  case.  In  many  of  the  instances  of 
severe  injury  to  the  brain,  one  hemisphere  only  has  been  affected, 
and  the  integrity  of  the  intellectual  manifestations  is  attributed  to 
the  duplicates  of  all  the  injured  organs  which  remain  entire  in  the 
other  hemisphere,  and  which  are  supposed  to  be  still  capable 
of  executing  their  functions,  even  as  one  eye  answers  the  purpose 
of  vision,  when  the  other  is  diseased  or  lost.  Now,  in  the  first 
place,  this  hypothesis  of  a  double  set  of  organs  is  a  sheer  fabrica- 
tion, invented  for  the  sole  purpose  of  meeting  this  very  case,  and 
upheld  by  no  other  evidence  than  the  identical  phenomena  to  the 
explanation  of  which  it  is  subsequently  applied.  The  effects  of 
partial  injuries  to  the  brain  are  brought  forward  to  establish  the 
position  that  each  faculty  is  provided  with  a  double  organ,  and 
the  duplicity  of  the  organs  is  then  made  to  interpret  the  same  facts 
from  which  it  has  been  inferred.  This  combination  of  the 
inductive  and  deductive  process,  in  reference  to  precisely  the 
same  set  of  facts,  is  a  novelty  in  philosophical  reasoning,  and  it 
may  be  doubted  whether  it  can  lead  to  any  very  brilliant  or  useful 
discovery.  Those  of  our  readers  who  have  ever  witnessed  the 
dissection  of  the  brain,  will  not  need  to  be  told  that  this  hypothesis 
of  double  organs  is  effectually  discredited  by  the  dissimilarity 
which  is  always  found  to  exist  between  the  two  hemispheres  of 
the  cerebrum.  The  lobes  on  different  sides  of  \\\efalx  cerebri,  not 
only  differ  in  different  brains,  but  do  not  correspond  with  each 

26 


402  PHRENOLOGY. 

Other  in  the  same  head.  But,  in  the  second  place,  there  are  many- 
cases  in  which  the  injury  has  been  sustained  by  both  hemispheres, 
and  in  similar  portions ;  and  yet  the  faculties  have  continued  to 
act  with  their  usual  vigour,  though  both  parts  of  their  organs  have 
been  destroyed.  The  decisive  evidence  of  these  cases  cannot  be 
deprived  of  its  weight  by  the  general  imputation  of  inaccuracy  in 
the  observation  of  the  injuries  sustained,  or  of  their  mental  effects. 
If  the  phrenologists  are  entitled  to  assume,  as  they  in  fact  do,  that 
a  belief  in  their  mysteries  is  an  indispensable  qualification  for 
making  any  correct  observations  upon  the  brain  or  the  mind,  the 
game  is,  of  course,  entirely  in  their  own  hands.  But  we  fear  that 
such  men  as  Haller,  Cooper,  Bell,  and  Magendie,  will  continue  to 
speak,  and  that  the  public  will  receive  their  testimony.  Still  less 
is  this  evidence  to  be  disposed  of  by  the  blustering  pretence  that, 
instead  of  demolishing,  it  really  establishes  the  system  of  phrenology. 
But  if  we  grant  all  the  propositions  which  we  have  thus  far 
controverted,  we  shall  find  the  system  again  giving  way  at  the 
next  point.  Granting  the  existence  of  the  phrenological  organs, 
we  are  then  required  to  believe  that  the  size  of  each  of  them 
determines  the  degree  of  its  energy,  and  imposes  a  limit  upon  the 
exercise  of  the  faculty  which  is  manifested  through  its  agency. 
We  are  to  receive  this  upon  such  evidence  as  the  following.  '•  An 
old  man  showed  his  sons  a  bundle  of  rods,  and  pointed  out  to 
them  how  easy  it  was  to  snap  asunder  one,  and  how  diflicult 
to  break  the  whole.  The  strength  of  the  bones  is  proportioned 
to  their  size.  A  tube  of  three  inches  diameter  will  transmit  more 
water  than  a  tube  of  only  one  inch.  A  liver  of  four  square  inches 
will  secrete  less  bile  than  one  of  eight  inches."  The  specimens 
which  we  have  already  given  of  this  kind  of  analogical  reasoning 
between  things  totally  unlike,  were  sufficiently  ludicrous  ;  but  here, 
as  if  the  secretions  of  the  bodily  organs  were  not  of  themselves 
remote  enough  from  the  operations  of  the  mind,  the  inanimate 
world  is  ransacked  for  analogies  to  illustrate  the  laws  according 
to  which  mental  effects  are  produced.  The  mechanical  effects  of 
two  machines  of  similar  construction,  will  be  in  proportion  to  their 
size,  but  if  this  is  considered  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  mechani- 
cal or  chemical  energy  of  the  medullary  organs  will  be  increased 
with  their  magnitude,  how  shall  it  be  shown,  in  our  entire  igno- 
rance of  the  nature  of  the  connexion  between  the  faculty  and  its 
organ,  that  when  this  action  has  passed  a  certain  limit  it  does  not 
cease  to  produce  its  greatest  effect  upon  the  mind  ?  There  are 
two  questions  here  which  the  phrenologists  have  been  too  igno- 
rant or  too  cunning  to  distinguish.  The  one  respects  the  efficiency 
of  the  brain  in  carrying  on  its  secretions,  or  the  play  of  its  fibres ; 
the  other,  the  law  according  to  which  the  product  of  the  brain 
influences  the  mind.  We  may  admit  that  any  of  the  organs  will 
secrete  a  more  abundant  supply  of  its  fluid,  or  move  its  fibres  with 
greater  momentum,  according  to  its  size,  but  where  shall  we  find 
any  analogies  to  prove  that  the  most  successful  exercise  of  the 


PHRENOLOGY.  403 

mental  faculty  depends  upon  the  greatest  possible  product  of  its 
oro-an  ?  It  would  be  superfluous  to  attempt  to  show  the  imperti- 
nency  of  every  effort  of  this  kind. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  phrenological  organs,  and  of  the  influence  of  size  upon 
the  manifestations  of  the  faculties,  which  is  said  to  be  afforded  by 
observation.     Thousands  of  heads  have  been  examined,  and  it  has 
been  found  that  those  who  were  distinguished  for  any  particular 
talent  or  disposition,  have  had  a  protuberance  on  similar  parts  of 
the  skull,  while  those  who  were  deficient  in  the  same  respect  have 
had  a  corresponding  depression.    Phrenology  is,  therefore,  a  science 
of  observation.     It  rests  upon  an  immovable  basis,  since  its  prin- 
ciples are  all  inductions  from  a  great  number  of  facts.     Its  oppo- 
nents are  in  consequence   challenged  to  disprove   the  facts,  or 
receive  the  inferences  drawn  from  them.     Now  it  would  be  an 
easy  matter  to  collect  a  set  of  astrological  facts,  and  frame  a  theory 
in  correspondence  with  them,  which  would  be  quite  as  stubborn 
and  unmanageable  as  phrenology.     Time  was,  when  learned  men 
believed  that  the  stars  shaped  the  character  and  course  of  our 
lives;    that   men   were   made  "fools,  by  heavenly   compulsion; 
knaves,  thieves,  and  treachers,  by  spherical  predominance ;  drunk- 
ards, liars,  and  adulterers,  by  an  enforced  obedience  of  planetary 
influence.''     By  casting  many  nativities,  and  noting  the  character 
manifested  for  each  planetary  ascendency,  we  could  construct  as 
impregnable  a  bulwark  of  facts  around  the  doctrine,  that  every 
variety  of  character  may  be  fully  accounted  for  by  the  horoscope, 
as  is  now  thrown  up  in  defence  of  phrenology.     Who  would  waste 
his  time  in  casting  the  nativities  and  prying  into  the  characters  of 
his  neighbours,  to  obtain  rebutting  facts  ?     The  observers  have  all 
been  phrenologists,  and,  like  the  sailor  whistling  for  a  wind,  they 
have  of  course  found  the  coincidences  which  they  expected  to  find. 
Whether  a  protuberance  on  a  particular  part  of  the  skull  is  the 
invariable  sign  of  some  special  quality  of  mind  or  attribute  of 
character  is  clearly  a  question  of  fact.     The  phrenologists  assert 
that,  in  all  the  instances  which  have  come  under  their  observation, 
they  have  found  it  to  be  true,  and  in  illustration  of  it  they  describe 
the  heads  and  characters  of  particular  individuals.     We  assert,  on 
the  contrary,  that  we  have  known  many  excellent  mathematicians 
who  had  no  projection  at  the  outer  angle  of  the  eye  where  the 
organ  of  Number  is  placed,  and  also  many  very  worthy  and 
harmless  persons  who  had  an  alarming  development  of  the  organ 
of  Destructiveness.     We  do  not  choose,  however,  to  cite  names 
and  discuss  characters  before  the  public,  and  every  man  must 
therefore  decide  for  himself  whether  the  results  of  his  own  obser- 
vation confirm  our  testimony  or  that  of  the  phrenologists. 

In  the  meantime  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  invalidate  the  conclu- 
sions of  phrenology,  by  showing  from  the  nature  of  the  subject, 
that  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable,  if  not  absolutely  impos- 
sible, that  a  sufficient  number  of  facts  can  as  yet  have  been  col- 


404  PHRENOLOGY. 

lected  to  establish  the  science.  There  is,  in  the  first  place,  an 
appalling  difficulty  arising  from  the  number  of  organs  to  be  located. 
These  are  thirty-five  in  number.  At  the  outset  of  the  investiga- 
tion, nothing  was  known  of  the  situation  of  any  one  of  them,  and 
the  only  means  of  determining  their  relative  position  was  by  a 
compound  observation  of  characters  and  skulls.  An  individual 
must  have  been  selected,  who  was  distinguished  for  some  quality, 
and  out  of  the  thirty-five  protuberances  with  which  his  skull 
was  marked,  the  one  which  was  the  true  cause  of  his  remarkable 
trait  of  character  must  have  been  eliminated  by  a  process  of 
comparison  with  other  heads.  Any  algebraist  who  will  under- 
take to  solve  a  problem  involving  thirty-five  different  equations, 
each  containing  as  many  unknown  quantities,  will  need  no  other 
refutation  of  phrenology.  But  this  would  not  be  attended  with  the 
thousandth  part  of  the  difficulty  which  besets  the  attempt  to  locate 
the  phrenological  organs  by  observation.  The  problem  of  which 
the  phrenologists  profess  to  have  given  us  the  solution  is  of  a  much 
more  formidable  nature.  Thirty-five  different  faculties  are  given, 
to  determine,  by  observation,  the  signs  of  each  of  them  upon  the 
cranium.  Now  the  possible  permutations  of  thirty-five  diflferent 
quantities  surpass  our  powers  of  conception  ;  the  number  which 
expresses  them  contains  forty-one  places  of  figures  !  The  difficulty 
of  proving  that  any  particular  one  out  of  this  infinite  number  of 
possible  permutations  in  the  organs  is  actually  marked  upon  the 
skull  is  so  great,  that  we  may,  without  presumption  or  discourtesy, 
pronounce  it  insurmountable.  Ages  upon  ages  of  observation 
would  be  necessary  to  verify  any  particular  hypothesis  ;  and  in 
the  meantime  phrenology  is  not  entitled  to  assume  at  best  any 
higher  character  than  that  of  a  lucky  guess. 

The  impossibility  of  demonstrating  it  to  be  true  by  facts,  will  be 
still  further  confirmed,  if  any  confirmation  be  necessary,  when  we 
consider  the  inherent  difficulties  in  the  way  of  correct  and  satisfac- 
tory observation.  It  is  alleged  that  facts  have  proved  that  the 
vigour  of  each  intellectual  manifestation  is  in  proportion  to  the 
size  of  its  organ.  But  the  size  includes  two  elements,  the  length, 
measured  from  the  medulla  oblongata,  and  the  breadth^  estimated 
by  the  superficial  area  of  the  base ;  and  we  need  no  better  evi- 
dence of  the  difficulty  which  must  have  embarrassed  the  pioneers 
of  the  science  in  determining  what  influence  was  due  to  each  of 
these  elements,  than  is  afforded  by  the  fact  that  we  are  even  yet 
furnished  with  no  canons  upon  this  subject.  We  are  told  that  the 
size  of  the  organs  must  be  ascertained,  and  that  in  forming  our 
judgment  of  the  size,  we  must  take  account  both  of  the  length  and 
breadth,  but  we  are  not  told  what  relative  weight  must  be  allowed 
to  these  two  constituent  elements.  Suppose  two  organs  are  found 
to  be  to  each  other  in  length  as  three  to  four,  and  in  breadth  as 
three  and  a  half  to  four,  what  proportion  do  they  bear  to  each 
other  in  size  ?  What  are  the  mental  eflfects  of  the  lateral  expan- 
.sion  of  one  of  the  organs,  in  comparison  with  its  projection  ?     Is  it 


I 


PHRENOLOGY.  405 

the  increased  number  of  the  fibres,  or  their  increased  length,  or  a 
certain  determinate  ratio  of  the  one  to  the  other,  that  produces  the 
most  vigorous  action  of  the  faculties  ?  Is  it  even  pretended  that 
this  point  has  been  satisfactorily  decided  ?  And  yet  it  is  plainly 
impossible  that  the  fundamental  position  respecting  the  influence  of 
size  can  have  been  proved  by  observation,  without  a  preliminary 
or  concurrent  adjustment  of  this  subordinate  question. 

Another  ground  of  doubt  as  to  the  value  of  the  facts  by  which 
it  is  said  the  science  has  been  established,  is  presented  by  the  evi- 
dent difficulty  of  measuring  the  dimensions  of  the  organs.  The 
thirty-five  organs  are  not  so  detached  from  each  other  that  they 
can  be  examined  separately  ;  they  are  all  crowded  within  a  nar- 
row compass  ;  and  the  bases  of  most  of  them  are  extremely  limited. 
Not  less  than  five  are  situated  in  the  arch  of  the  eye-brow.  The 
projection  of  each  of  these  organs,  and  the  area  of  its  base,  are  to 
be  determined  by  examining  the  skull.  This  determination  it  is 
utterly  impossible  for  any  mortal  to  make,  unless  he  has  been  gifted 
with  such  an  overwrought  delicacy  of  sense  that  he  can  feel  or 
see  what  does  not  exist.  There  are  no  conterminous  lines  between 
neighbouring  organs ;  no  boundary  marks  are  found  engraved 
upon  the  skull  like  the  dotted  lines  which,  on  the  phrenological 
busts,  designate  their  territorial  extent ;  nor  is  there  any  rule  by 
which  the  area  of  any  organ  can  be  estimated,  from  its  proportion 
to  that  of  the  whole  skull  or  any  part  of  it,  for  this  area  is,  by 
hypothesis,  a  variable  quantity.  How  is  it  possible,  then,  to  deter- 
mine the  breadth  of  the  organs,  except  by  the  use  of  such  "  optics 
sharp  "  as  may  enable  us  to  see  things  which  cannot  be  seen  ? 
How  can  it  be  told  with  certainty,  or  what  is  to  guide  us  even  to 
a  probable  conjecture,  where  one  organ  ends  and  another  begins  ? 
How,  but  by  divination,  can  we  learn  to  what  extent  Causality, 
for  instance,  has  been  encroached  upon  and  compressed  by  one  or 
more  of  the  six  organs  which  surround  it  ? 

Mr.  Combe  asserts  that  each  organ  has  a  form  and  appearance 
from  which  it  is  possible,  by  practice,  to  distinguish  its  boundaries 
in  the  living  head,  "  otherwise  phrenology  cannot  have  any  foun- 
dation." Then  it  is  very  certain  that  this  mighty  science,  with  its 
millions  of  facts  and  its  more  than  millions  of  blessings  for  the  human 
race,  has  no  foundation.  Though  it  might  require  much  practice 
to  distinguish  accurately  the  several  organs,  it  does  not  require 
much  to  decide  whether  there  are  found  upon  the  skull  any  marks 
by  which  a  distinction  can  be  made.  Every  man  can  settle  this  for 
himself  by  simply  passing  his  hand  along  the  arch  of  his  eyebrow, 
and  observing  whether  there  are  any  lines  or  marks  there  by 
which  five  different  organs  are  parcelled  out ;  or  by  examining  a 
skull,  stripped  of  its  integuments,  in  any  anatomical  cabinet,  and 
endeavouring  to  detect  the  points  at  which  an  elevation  or  depres- 
sion merges  itself  in  the  general  level,  or  to  discover  any  marks 
whatever  by  which  the  territorial  limits  of  the  different  organs 
are  designated.    No  such  boundaries  exist,  and  no  practice  can 


406  PHRENOLOGY. 

enable  us  to  find  them.  They  can  be  rendered  evident  only 
through  some  such  process  as  that  by  which  Dr.  King  proposes  to 
make  sounds  visible,  and  show^  that  they  are  of  a  blue  colour.* 
Mr.  Combe  admits  that  there  is  much  difficulty  in  determining  the 
breadth  of  the  organs, — that  nothing  more  than  an  approximation 
to  the  truth  can  be  made  ; — but  he  thinks  that  "  if  the  opponents 
would  only  make  themselves  masters  of  the  binomial  theorem,  or 
pay  a  little  attention  to  the  expansion  of  infinite  series,"  they  would 
be  satisfied.  Those  who  have  already  paid  some  attention  to  the 
binomial  theorem,  and  to  the  development  and  summation  of  infi- 
nite series,  will  probably  be  surprised  to  learn  that  they  have  been 
accustomed  to  processes  of  reasoning  which  involve  "  a  liability 
to  error  within  certain  very  narrow  limits,"  and  that  they  are 
expected,  in  consequence,  to  be  more  tolerant  than  others  of  the 
uncertainties  of  phrenology.  To  those  who  have  not  tried  this 
discipline,  we  would  venture  to  recommend  in  its  stead,  that  they 
should  make  themselves  masters  of  Swedenborg's  visions  and  pay 
a  little  attention  to  the  reveries  of  Jacob  Behmen.  If  they  can 
bring  themselves  to  believe  that  the  spectral  illusions  of  the  one 
were  realities,  and  the  incoherent  ravings  of  the  other  truth,  they 
may,  without  doing  further  violence  to  their  reason,  believe  that 
the  phrenologists  can  feel  and  see  things  that  are  not,  as  though 
they  were. 

But  supposing  both  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  organs,  and 
the  ratio  in  which  they  must  be  compounded  to  determine  the 
size  of  each,  to  be  known,  we  see  other  very  serious  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  satisfactory  observation.  "  It  ought  to  be  kept  con- 
stantly in  view,"  says  Mr.  Combe,  "  that  it  is  the  size  of  each  organ 
in  proportion  to  the  others  in  the  head  of  the  individual  observed, 
and  not  their  absolute  size,  or  their  size  in  reference  to  any  stand- 
ard head,  that  determines  the  predominance  in  him  of  particular 
talents  or  dispositions."  Let  it  be  remembered  that  these  organs 
all  orighiate  at  the  medulla  oblongata,  and  radiate  from  that  point 
to  the  outer  surface  of  the  brain  ;  and  as  some  parts  of  the  skull, 
in  all  men,  lie  much  nearer  this  radiating  point  than  others,  that 
the  organs  in  their  natural  state  are  of  unequal  length.  Supposing, 
then,  the  relative  size  of  two  organs  to  be  accurately  ascertained, 
we  are  not  yet  in  a  condition  to  judge  which  predominates  over 
the  other.  No  inference  can  be  drawn  from  the  greater  size  of  the 
one,  until  we  have  first  learned  the  relation  which  they  bear  to 
each  other  in  their  normal  state,  or  that  in  which  their  respective 
functions  are  in  proper  equipoise.  Nothing  can  be  more  absurd 
than  the  pretence  of  determining  which  of  two  or  more  unequal 
quantities  has  the  predominance,  without  any  reference  to  the  natu- 
ral relations  which  they  sustain.  The  laws  of  the  equilibrium  of  a 
system  of  forces  must  be  known  before  we  can  tell  what  the 
resultant  will  be.     The  phrenologists  have  stultified  themselves  by 

•  King's  Works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  100. 


PHRENOLOGY.  407 

pretending  to  determine  the  one  without  knowing  the  other.  Sup- 
pose it  to  have  been  ascertained  that  Amativeness  and  Conscien- 
tiousness, in  a  particular  head,  are  as  three  to  four  in  size,  how 
can  we  judge  from  this  which  will  predominate,  since,  in  every 
head,  the  latter  of  these  organs  is  longer  than  the  former  ?  We 
cannot  tell  whether  the  man  is  likely  to  be  more  amative  than  con- 
scientious, or  the  reverse,  unless  we  know  what  is  the  proportion 
in  the  size  of  the  organs,  when  neither  of  them  prevails  over  the 
other.  The  facts  of  phrenology  may  all  be  set  aside  therefore  by 
the  simple  consideration,  that  having  failed  to  establish  a  model 
head,  exhibiting  the  proportions  between  all  the  organs  when  in  a 
state  of  equipose,  they  have,  of  necessity,  failed  to  establish  the 
science. 

An  entirely  distinct  impeachment  of  the  value  of  the  facts  upon 
which  phrenology  rests,  may  be  found  in  the  difficulty  which  must 
have  been,  in  most  cases,  experienced  in  determining  the  true  cha- 
racter of  the  individual  who  was  the  subject  of  examination. 
What  manifold  liabilities  to  error  beset  the  attempt  to  discriminate 
iiicely  between  the  peculiar  talents  and  disposition  of  our  fellow 
men  ?  How  difficult  to  distinguish  between  real  and  affected 
sentiment,  to  trace  even  with  approximate  accuracy  the  influence 
of  different  motives,  and  to  penetrate  the  guise  of  artifice  and  dis- 
simulation by  which  the  real  character  is  concealed  ?  It  is  quite 
as  necessary  that  each  mental  and  moral  quality,  as  well  as  each 
organ,  should  have  "  a  form  and  appearance"  whereby  it  may 
be  distinguished,  "  otherwise  phrenology  cannot  have  any  founda- 
tion." This  alternative,  distressing  as  it  is,  will  probably  be 
adopted  by  most  men,  in  preference  to  believing  that  the  founders 
of  phrenology  have  been  able  to  fix  the  precise  shades  of  charac- 
ter which  existed  in  connexion  with  each  particular  configuration 
of  the  skull,  in  a  sufficient  number  of  instances  to  afford  a  safe 
induction.  How  did  they  acquire  this  wonderful  insight  into 
human  character  ?  How  were  their  observations  conducted, 
themselves  being  witnesses?  By  calUng  upon  the  individual  him- 
self to  confess  his  excellences  and  his  faults, — by  taking  the  testi- 
mony of  his  partial  friend, — by  gathering  up  the  rumours  of  the 
tattling,  and  the  scandals  of  the  malicious, — by  bribing  boys  with 
cake  and  sugar-plums  to  tell  each  other's  failings,  and  provoking 
them  to  engage  in  pugilistic  contests, — by  collecting  porters  and 
coachmen,  drunk  and  sober,  promiscuously  from  the  streets,  and 
exciting  them  to  talk  and  act,  to  dispute  and  fight.*     By  these  and 

*  We  find  in  the  "  Useful  Transactions,"  No.  II.,  a  paper  with  the  following  title  : 
*'  New  Additions  to  Mr.  Anthony  Van  Leuwenhoeck's  Microscopical  Observations 
upon  the  Tongue,  and  the  White  Matter  upon  the  Tongues  of  Feverish  Persons.  In 
which  are  shown,  the  several  Particles  proper  for  Prattling,  Tattling,  Plead- 
ing, Haranguing,  Lying,  Flattering,  Scolding,  and  other  such  like  Occasions, 
Communicated  by  Dr.  Testy." 

This  paper  was  published  many  years  before  Dr.  Gall's  discovery,  and  they  who 
read  it  will  find  so  great  a  similarity,  both  in  the  objects  contemplated,  and  in  the 
mode  of  observation,  as  to  create  the  suspicion  that  the  Glossology  of  Dr.  Testy  may 
have  suggested  the  Craniology  of  Dr.  Gall. 


408  PHRENOLOGY. 


t 


Other  equally  doubtful  means,  the  vast  body  of  facts  has  been  col- 
lected in  which  the  phrenologists  entrench  themselves  and  bid 
defiance  to  all  speculative  argument.  Let  it  be  considered  for  a 
moment,  how  great  is  the  exposure  to  error  in  both  parts  of  the 
observation — how  difficult  it  is  to  adjust  all  the  knotty  questions 
which  arise  in  determining  the  proportionate  size  of  the  different 
organs, — how  perplexing  to  ascertain  the  predominant  dispositions 
and  faculties, — and  then  how  the  separate  errors  of  each  of  these 
investigations  must  run  into  each  other  and  produce  false  results, — 
and  the  facts  will  have  no  value  for  any  but  those  who  are  seeking 
for  the  proof  of  a  foregone  conclusion. 

When  opposing  facts  are  presented  the  phrenologists  are  always 
ready  with  some  mode  of  escape  from  the  apparent  discrepancy ; 
and  the  outlets  at  their  command  are  so  numerous  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  close  them  all.  Is  Destructiveness  found  to  be  large  in 
the  head  of  a  man  who  is  known  to  manifest  no  destructive  pro- 
pensities, while  another  man  in  whom  this  organ  is  relatively 
smaller  is  a  very  Apollyon  in  mischief?  Nothing  can  be  more 
easily  explained.  We  are  not  to  consider  the  size  of  the  organs 
as  the  sole  cause  of  their  power  ;  and  in  the  present  case  we  must 
suppose, — we  must  do  it,  because  "  otherwise  phrenology  cannot 
have  any  foundation  " — we  must  suppose  that  the  smaller  organ  is 
of  a  finer  texture,  and  therefore  works  with  more  vigour.  Is  a 
diminutive  organ  of  Hope  found  in  connexion  with  a  cheerful  and 
trusting  disposition  1  There  is  no  difficulty  at  all  in  the  case.  The 
individual  is  of  a  sanguine  temperament ;  and  if  we  do  not  admit 
that  the  temperaments  have  a  great  influence  in  modifying  the 
actions  of  the  organs,  "  phrenology  cannot  have  any  foundation." 
Is  an  uncommon  development  of  IdeaUty  discovered  upon  the 
skull  of  some  Peter  Bell,  to  whom  every  enamelled  meadow  is 
but  a  pasture  ground,  and  every  cataract  a  mill-seat  ?  What  can 
be  more  simple?  he  was  doubtless  compelled  in  early  youth  to 
bear  the  brunt  of  the  hard  realities  of  life,  and  we  must  remember 
that  the  tendency  of  any  organ  may  be  repressed  by  unfavourable 
circumstances.  Does  an  individual,  who  has  been,  up  to  a  certain 
point,  a  wasteful  spendthrift,  suddenly  become  miserly  in  his  habits 
without  any  corresponding  change  in  his  Acquisitiveness  ?  This 
may  be  readily  explained  by  the  supposition  that  his  Acquisitiveness 
has  become  diseased, — a  chronic  inflammation  has  seized  upon  it, 
and  will  henceforth  act  with  a  vigour  disproportioned  to  its  size. 
"  Education,"  too,  "  exercise"  and  "  favourable  events"  will  impart 
to  a  moderately-sized  organ,  the  power  of  a  much  larger  one. 
How  easy  it  would  be,  with  such  flexible  materials,  to  construct 
any  system  whatever  ?  How  absurd  to  pretend  that  in  the  face  of 
such  difficulties  phrenology  has  been  established  by  facts — that 
while  the  influence  due  to  the  mere  magnitude  of  the  organs  may 
be  neutralized  by  their  quality — by  the  degree  in  which  they  have 
been  exercised — by  the  education  and  circumstances  of  the  indi- 
vidual— by  his  temperament — and  by  diseases  which  have  no  other 


PHRENOLOGY. 


409 


than  mental  symptoms— there  have  yet  been  found  a  sufficient 
number  of  cases,  agreeing  in  these  secondary  respects,  to  furnish 
the  induction  that  the  size  of  the  organs  determines  the  vigour  of 
the  faculties,  and  to  prove  that  out  of  the  inconceivable  number  of 
possible  combinations  of  these  organs  within  the  skull,  a  particular 
one  has  place  ? 

The  argument  against  this  science  is  cumulative.  Were  the 
considerations  already  presented  devoid  of  v^reight,  its  facts  a-re  all 
overthrown,  and  the  whole  system  demolished,  by  the  impossibility 
of  ascertaining  the  degree  in  which  the  different  parts  of  the  brain 
are  developed,  by  the  examination  of  the  skull.  For  a  complete 
discussion  of  this  point,  we  refer  to  the  able  lecture  of  Dr.  Sewall, 
who  has  constructed  upon  anatomical  grounds  an  unanswerable 
argument  against  phrenology.  He  shows  that  the  skulls  of  some 
individuals  are  eight  times  thicker  than  those  of  others — that  in 
the  same  individual  the  thickness  of  the  skull  varies  in  different 
portions — and  that  in  some  parts  its  internal  and  external  tables 
recede  from  each  other,  forming  cavities,  called  sinuses,  of  greater 
or  less  extent. 

The  frontal  sinus,  situated  in  the  anterior  and  lower  portion  of 
the  frontal  bone,  renders  it  impossible  to  form  any  judgment  of  the 
development  of  the  brain  behind  it ;  and  yet  no  less  than  nine  of 
the  organs  are  placed  within  the  region  occupied  by  this  cavity. 
Eight  others  are  covered  by  the  temporal  muscle,  through  which 
it  is  impossible  that  their  size  can  be  ascertained.  Seventeen  of 
the  organs  are  thus  placed  absolutely  beyond  the  reach  of  observa- 
tion, nor  can  the  size  of  any  of  the  others  be  certainly  estimated 
from  the  examination  of  the  living  head,  in  consequence  of  our 
inability  to  determine  the  thickness  of  the  skull.  These  things  being 
duly  considered,  the  boastful  challenge  of  the  phrenologists  to  refute 
their  facts,  becomes  superlatively  ridiculous. 

The  examination  of  the  merits  of  phrenology,  as  a  theory  of  the 
mind,  forms  a  distinct  topic,  upon  which  we  cannot  now  enter. 
Their  classification  of  the  mental  affections  includes  as  paltry  a 
collection  of  puerilities  as  was  ever  palmed  upon  the  world  under 
the  name  of  philosophy.  There  are  thirty-five  different  faculties, 
sentiments  and  propensities — we  believe  a  thirty-sixth  has  been 
added  lately — and  yet  some  of  the  most  important  phenomena  of 
the  mind  are  left  unexplained.  The  same  grounds  upon  which 
many  of  the  distinctions  have  been  made  between  different  facul- 
ties would  lead  to  their  indefinite  multiplication;  and  it  would 
be  a  decided  improvement  upon  the  present  system,  to  maintain 
that  there  are  as  many  faculties  of  the  mind,  as  we  have  thoughts 
and  feelings. 

And  the  compounders  of  this  medley  of  dogmatism  and  quackery 
are  the  men  who  have  "  opened  up  to  mankind  a  career  of  improve- 
ment, physical,  moral,  and  intellectual,  to  which  the  boldest  imagi- 
nation can  at  present  prescribe  no  limits  !"  These  are  they  whom 
posterity  will  honour  "  as  the  greatest  benefactors  to  mankind  !*' 


410  PHRENOLOGY. 

Benefactors  doubtless  they  will  be,  though  in  a  much  humbler  way 
than  Mr.  Combe  supposes.  The  open  shaft  of  the  unsuccessful 
miner  will  at  least  save  others  from  a  useless  expenditure  of  labour 
in  the  same  spot.  The  problem  of  human  perfectibility  has  not 
yet  been  so  fully  solved,  that  we  can  afford  to  dispense  with  the 
aid  to  be  derived  from  observation  upon  the  fruitless  efforts  and 
anomalous  movements  of  the  mind.  Every  mistake  and  error  will 
contribute  to  the  increase  of  our  knowledge,  even  as  useful  plants 
are  nourished  by  the  ashes  of  noxious  and  worthless  weeds. 

Phrenology  was  born  some  centuries  too  late.  Had  it  come  into 
being  in  the  days  when  astrology  and  the  theory  of  "  herbal  signa- 
tures "  were  sciences,  and  the  philosophers  were  as  imaginative  a 
race  as  poets,  it  would  have  gained  all  suffrages.  Porta  would 
have  been  delighted  to  compare  together  the  auguries  of  the  stars 
and  the  skull ;  Albertus  would  have  availed  himself  of  it  in  super- 
adding to  the  talking  powers  of  his  man  of  brass,  the  gift  of  reason ; 
Paracelsus  would  have  compounded  no  more  recipes  for  making 
fairies  ;  and  Oswald  Crollius  would  have  sought  to  help  the  imagi- 
nation by  squeezing  the  skull  into  a  proper  shape  instead  of  apply- 
ing to  it  the  brains  of  swift-winged  birds.  The  degree  of  popular 
favour  which  this  pseudo-science  has  attained  in  the  present  day, 
is  to  be  attributed,  in  part  at  least,  to  the  fact,  that  its  darkness 
shelters  the  incapacity  of  its  professors,  which  could  not  fail  to  be 
visible  in  other  pursuits  ;  and  that  it  flatters  its  disciples  into  the 
belief  that  they  possess  talents  and  excellences  of  which  they  have 
no  other  evidence.  But  it  must  soon  pass  to  its  place  in  the  history 
of  the  follies  of  the  human  mind  ;  and  all  attacks  upon  it  would  be 
superfluous  save  for  the  hope  of  accelerating,  in  some  degree,  its 
natural  progress  towards  its  resting-place  among  the  occult  fancies 
of  past  ages. 


I 


ESSAY    XIV 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION 


We  have  in  this  work  the  result  of  the  most  elaborate  attempt, 
which  has  been  made  in  recent  times,  to  establish  a  mechanical 
theory  of  the  universe.  The  author,  "  working  in  solitude,  and 
almost  without  the  cognisance  of  a  single  human  being,"  has 
presented  us  with  the  fruit  of  his  labours  in  a  compacted  theory, 
for  the  support  of  which  he  has  drawn,  more  or  less,  from  almost 
every  department  of  human  knowledge.  Astronomy,  geology, 
chemistry,  natural  history,  ethnography,  physical  and  metaphysical 
science,  are  all  laid  under  contribution  for  the  establishment  of  his 
theory.  His  work  gives  proof  of  an  extensive  acquaintance  with 
modern  science,  and  of  singular  ability  to  connect  together  facts  in 
real  or  seeming  support  of  the  superstructure  which  he  attempts  to 
rear.  The  whole  is  presented  in  a  style  of  severe  simplicity,  and 
with  such  a  calm  confidence  as  might  seem  to  be  inspired  by  the 
writer's  thorough  mastery  of  his  subject  and  complete  conviction 
of  its  truth.  Even  in  those  parts  of  his  theory  which  others  will 
feel  to  be  the  most  astounding,  he  proceeds  with  a  step  as  calm 
and  assured,  as  if  he  were  dealing  only  with  universal  and  neces- 
sary truths. 

His  theory  commences,  like  most  recent  cosmogonies,  with  the 
nebular  hypothesis  of  Laplace.  This  hypothesis,  which  Laplace 
gives  with  great  diffidence,  as  a  mere  conjecture,  our  author 
puts  forward  with  the  utmost  confidence,  declaring  that  **it  is 
impossible  for  a  candid  mind  to  refrain  from  giving  it  a  cordial 
reception."  That  he  himself  has,  however,  but  a  confused  and 
imperfect  comprehension  of  it,  is  perfectly  apparent.  We  propose 
to  give  a  condensed  statement  of  his  account  of  the  primitive 
condition  of  matter,  and  the  successive  changes  it  has  under- 
gone, although  any  attempt  to  abridge  it  must  necessarily  deprive 
it  of  much  of  its  force.  The  plausibility  which  the  author  has 
succeeded  in    imparting  to  this  theory  depends  very  much  upon 

♦  Originally  published  in  1845,  in  review  of  "  Vestiges  of  the  Natural  History  of 
Creation.    New  York :  Wiley  and  Putnam." 


412  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 


i 


the  cumulative  force  of  a  number  of  particulars,  no  one  of  which 
possesses  much  weight  when  taken  by  itself. 

The  region  of  infinite  space  is  supposed  to  have  been  originally- 
occupied  with  matter  exceedingly  diffused  and  intensely  heated, 
termed  nebulous  matter.  Whether  this  matter  be  created  or 
self-existent,  whether  its  properties  are  to  be  considered  as  inhe- 
rent, or  derived  ab  extra,  seems  to  us  of  small  moment  to  one  who 
adopts  the  other  parts  of  the  theory  set  forth  in  this  work.  It  is 
but  just,  however,  to  state  that  the  author,  though  at  the  expense 
of  his  logical  consistency,  refers  the  properties  of  the  "  Fire- 
Mist"  from  which  he  builds  the  universe,  to  the  will  of  a  designing 
Creator.  Through  the  action  of  the  active  properties  with  which 
this  primitive  matter  was  endowed,  all  subsequent  forms  and 
modes  of  being,  organic  as  well  as  inorganic,  suns,  planets,  satel- 
lites, vegetables,  animals,  and  man  himself,  are  supposed  to  have 
been  evolved  by  mechanical  laws,  without  any  interference  of  the 
will  of  the  Creator.  The  great  law  of  creation  is  that  of  develop- 
ment, in  obedience  to  which  matter,  under  certain  favourable  condi- 
tions, passes  spontaneously  from  one  form  into  another,  generating 
systems  of  worlds,  with  all  their  different  orders  of  inhabitants. 

In  the  first  instance  nuclei  are  established  at  different  points 
in  the  nebulous  mass,  around  which  the  neighbouring  matter  is 
condensed  by  the  attraction  of  gravitation.  How  these  nuclei 
are  formed,  in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge  of  nebulous 
matter,  we  cannot  determine  ;  but  supposing  them  to  be  established, 
we  can  see  how  the  attraction  towards  the  centres  should  detach 
large  masses  of  nebulous  matter.  And  when  these  masses  are 
detached,  the  same  force  which  has  separated  them,  our  author 
contends,  will  have  given  them  a  rotatory  motion  upon  an  axis. 
He  refers  us  for  illustration  of  this  point  to  *'  a  well  known  law 
in  physics,  that  when  fluid  matter  collects  towards  or  meets  in  a 
centre,  it  establishes  a  rotatory  motion  ;  see  minor  results  of  this 
law  in  the  whirlwind  and  the  whirlpool — nay,  on  so  humble  a 
scale  as  the  water  sinking  through  the  aperture  of  a  funnel." 
This  is  one  of  many  proofs  which  might  be  gathered  from  this 
book,  that  the  author's  acquaintance  with  science  is  extensive 
rather  than  accurate.  He  is  continually  at  fault  when  he  attempts 
to  pass  from  the  final  results  of  a  scientific  research  and  deal  with 
the  first  principles  involved.  The  rotatory  motions  of  wind  and 
water  which  he  adduces  in  this  instance  have  no  relation  to  the 
matter  in  hand.  They  are  produced  by  a  hiatus  and  a  pressure 
a  tergo,  and  can  of  course  shed  no  light  upon  the  method  by  which 
a  similar  motion  might  have  been  established  in  a  nebulous  mass 
of  homogeneous  matter  acted  upon  by  a  simple  force.  The  most 
elementary  knowledge  of  the  doctrine  of  central  forces  would  have 
been  sufficient  to  prove  to  him  that  no  single  force  acting  upon  the 
particles  of  an  isolated  mass  of  matter  could  communicate  to  them 
a  rotatory  motion.  In  such  a  mass  curvihnear  motion  must 
necessarily  be  the  resultant  of  a  tangential  impulse  and  a  central 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION.  413 

force.  The  single  force  of  gravitation  could  give  origin  only  to 
a  rectilineal  motion  towards  the  centre,  unless  the  particles  were 
at  the  same  time  attracted  by  some  neighbouring  patch  of  nebu- 
lous matter.  This  mistake  does  not  indeed  vitiate  the  author's 
theory,  but  it  detracts  from  the  simplicity  which  is  one  of  its  chief 
recommendations,  inasmuch  as  two  forces  must  necessarily  be 
assigned  to  perform  the  work  which  he  ascribes  to  one ;  or  a 
perfectly  arbitrary  hypothesis  must  be  assumed  of  the  relative 
size  and  collocation  of  different  nebulous  masses  that  their  mutual 
interactions  may  account  for  the  result. 

The  rotation  having  been  established,  there  is  generated  a 
tendency  in  the  rotating  mass  to  throw  off  its  outward  portions. 
The  least  excess  of  the  centrifugal  force,  thus  generated,  over 
the  central  force,  would  separate  the  outer  parts  of  the  mass 
which  would  be  left  as  a  ring  round  the  central  body,  revolving 
with  the  same  velocity  that  the  whole  mass  possessed  at  the 
moment  of  separation.  This  process  might  be  successively 
repeated,  until  the  mass  had  attained  its  utmost  limit  of  condensa- 
tion. The  excess  of  the  centrifugal  force,  through  which  this 
separation  takes  place,  is  supposed  to  be  due  to  the  agency  of 
heat. 

The  condensation  of  a  nebulous  mass  around  its  centre  is 
attended  by  refrigeration,  under  which  the  outer  parts  acquire  a 
solidity  which  begins  to  resist  the  attractive  force.  The  conden- 
sation of  the  central  mass,  in  the  meantime,  going  on,  a  point  is  at 
length  reached  at  which  it  shrinks  away  from  its  outer  crust,  which 
is  left,  like  Saturn's  rings,  revolving  around  it. 

These  rings,  unless  they  are  composed  of  matter  perfectly  or 
nearly  uniform,  would  necessarily  break  into  several  masses,  the 
largest  one  of  which  would  attract  the  others  into  itself  The 
whole  mass  would  then  take  a  spherical  form,  and  become  a 
planet  revolving  round  the  sun,  and  upon  its  own  axis.  The  rota- 
tory motion  of  this  planet  might  in  turn  throw  off  one  or  more 
rings,  which  by  a  similar  process  would  become  transformed  into 
satellites,  having  a  three-fold  motion  on  their  own  axes,  around  the 
planet,  and  with  it  around  the  sun. 

Such  was  the  genesis  of  our  solar  system,  which  shows  in  the 
different  bodies  composing  it,  all  the  variations,  with  one  exception, 
which  this  law  of  construction  was  capable  of  producing.  It 
contains  some  planets,  which  when  thrown  off  were  too  much 
solidified,  or  from  other  circumstances  so  conditioned  that  they 
threw  off  no  outer  crust,  and  are  therefore  without  satellites,  while 
others  are  attended  by  these  secondary  products  of  the  centrifugal 
force,  in  varying  numbers.  And  again,  in  the  space  between  Mars 
and  Jupiter,  where  Kepler,  listening  only  to  the  harmonies  of  the  sys- 
tem, which,  as  he  expresses  it,  "  he  had  stolen  from  the  golden  vases 
of  the  Egyptians,"  had  prophesied  the  discovery  of  a  planet,  we  have 
in  the  four  asteroids  an  instance,  which  might  have  been  expected 
sometimes  to  occur,  in  which  the  different  portions  into   which 


414  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

the  planetary  ring  broke  up  were  so  situated  that  no  one  of  them 
absorbed  the  others,  and  hence  each  became  a  separate  m.inor 
planet.  In  the  two  rings  of  Saturn  we  are  also  presented  with  a 
case  of  what  might  rarely  happen,  in  which  the  particles  of  matter 
composing  the  separated  crust  were  so  uniform,  that  it  remained 
entire  instead  of  breaking  up  into  satellites.  These  varieties,  inas- 
much as  they  lie  within  the  possibilities  of  the  hypothesis,  are 
deemed  a  confirmation  of  its  truth.  So,  also,  another  apparently 
anomalous  construction,  that  of  solar  systems  embracing  two  or 
more  suns,  many  of  which  are  visible  in  our  firmament,  is  supposed 
to  render  support  to  the  hypothesis  which  at  first  sight  it  seems  to 
threaten.  Some  of  the  double  stars  are  found  by  careful  observa- 
tion to  revolve  round  each  other  in  ellipses,  and  hence  it  is  fair  to 
infer  that  they  all  do.  A  system  of  this  kind  would  therefore  be 
generated,  precisely  like  ours,  if  there  were  given  at  the  outset  two 
or  more  nuclei,  instead  of  one,  in  the  diffused  nebulous  mass. 

At  this  point  the  author  again  stumbles  in  referring  the  genesis 
of  the  motions  in  such  a  system  to  the  same  law  which  sometimes 
produces  two  or  more  neighbouring  whirlpool  dimples  upon  the 
face  of  a  river.  "  These  fantastic  eddies,  which  the  musing  poet 
will  sometimes  watch  abstractedly  for  an  hour,  little  thinking  of 
the  law  which  produces  and  connects  them,  are  an  illustration  of 
the  wonders  of  binary  and  ternary  solar  systems."  We  must  be 
permitted  to  say  that  the  musing  poet  is  much  more  profitably 
employed  upon  the  whirling  dance  of  these  fantastic  eddies,  than 
the  thinking  philosopher,  unless  he  thinks  to  better  purpose.  The 
one,  in  the  subjective  law  which  determines  his  musing,  reaches  a 
reality,  while  the  other,  in  his  scientific  search  after  the  actual  law 
of  production,  finds  only  a  shadow.* 

This  error  of  the  author,  however,  affects  his  hypothesis  only  so 
far  as  its  simplicity  is  concerned.  He  has,  beyond  all  question, 
erred  in  supposing  that  he  could  generate  the  motions  of  a  solar 
system,  whether  with  one  or  more  suns,  simply  by  postulating  in 

*  Another  amusing  illustration  of  the  carelessness  of  the  author,  to  call  it  by 
no  harsher  name,  is  found  on  p.  24,  where  he  informs  us  that  "  the  tear  that  falls 
from  childhood's  cheek  is  globular,  through  the  efficacy  of  the  same  law  of  mutual 
attraction  of  particles  which  made  the  sun  and  planets  round."  Why  did  he  not  add 
that  the  soap-bubble  preserved  its  spherical  form  from  the  action  of  the  same  cause 
which  determines  Saturn's  ring  ?  The  attraction  of  gravitation  has  as  much  to  do  in 
the  case  of  the  bubble  as  of  the  tear,  that  is,  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  determining 
the  peculiar  form  of  either,  that  form  being  due  to  the  superficial  action  of  the  parti- 
cles. Familiar  illustrations  of  ultimate  scientific  principles  are  dangerous  things  in 
the  hands  of  one  who  allows  himself  to  think  and  speak  loosely. 

We  find  on  p.  2S  a  still  grosser  error.  '*  A  chemist,  we  are  told,  can  reckon  with 
considerable  precision  what  additional  amount  of  heat  would  be  required  to  vaporise 
all  the  water  of  our  globe — how  much  more  to  disengage  the  oxygen  which  is  dif- 
fused in  nearly  a  proportion  of  one-half  through  its  solids ;  and  finally  how  much 
more  would  be  required  to  cause  the  whole  to  become  vaporiform,  which  we  may 
consider  eqHivalent  to  its  being  restored  to  its  original  nebulous  state,"  This  confu- 
sion of  vapour  with  nebulous  matter  is  a  blunder  too  gross  to  have  escaped  a  mind 
accustomed  to  accurate  habits  of  thinking.  The  conception  which  the  necessities 
of  the  hypothesis  compels  us  to  form  of  nebulous  matter  is  as  unlike  to  vapour,  as 
it  is  to  granite. 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION.  415 

addition  to  the  other  conditions,  the  property  of  gravitation  in  the 
particles  of  nebulous  matter.  His  postulates,  thus  far,  are  diffused 
masses  of  nebulous  matter  filling  immense  portions  of  space ;  this 
matter  intensely  heated  and  endowed  with  a  tendency  to  throw 
off  its  heat  under  the  process  of  condensation ;  the  origination,  in 
some  unknown  way,  of  nuclei  or  centres  of  condensation  at  differ- 
ent points  in  these  nebulous  masses ;  and,  lastly,  the  existence  of  a 
property  in  virtue  of  which  the  particles  of  this  matter  mutually 
attract  each  other  in  the  inverse  ratio  of  the  square  of  the  distance. 
These  postulates,  though  by  no  means  distinctly  put  forth,  are  all 
embraced  in  the  hypothesis,  and  it  is  therefore  a  matter  of  com- 
paratively small  moment  that  the  error  which  we  have  pointed 
out  renders  an  additional  one  necessary.  But  it  tends  to  weaken 
our  confidence  in  one  who  offers  himself  as  our  guide  in  tracing 
out  the  vestiges  of  creation,  when  we  find  him  stumbling  at  the 
outset  among  the  first  elementary  principles  of  physical  science. 
Nor  is  he  always  consistent  with  himself.  It  has  been  seen  that 
the  hypothesis  which  he  is  expounding  demands  that  the  nebulous 
mass  should  be  accompanied  by  a  process  of  cooling,  so  that  Ura- 
nus, the  outermost  planet,  was  formed  when  the  heat  of  the  mat- 
ter composing  our  system  was  at  the  greatest,  and  Mercury  when 
it  was  at  the  least.  This,  the  author  supposes,  will  account  for 
the  decreasing  specific  gravity  of  the  planets  as  we  recede  from 
the  sun.  The  outer  planets  having  been  thrown  off  when,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  greater  heat  of  the  mass,  its  particles  were  more 
diffused,  would  of  necessity  be  lighter  than  those  which  were 
subsequently  detached.  The  greater  heat,  too,  which  these  dis- 
tant planets  retain,  he  thinks,  may  be  sufficient  to  compensate  for 
the  smallness  of  the  portion  which  they  receive  from  the  sun's 
rays.  And  yet  in  immediate  connexion  with  this  exposition  he 
asks,  "  where,  meanwhile,  is  the  heat  once  diffused  through  the 
system,  over  and  above  what  remains  in  the  planets  ?  May  we 
not  rationally  presume  it  to  have  gone  to  constitute  that  luminous 
envelope  of  the  sun,  in  which  his  warmth-giving  power  is  now  held 
to  reside  ?  It  could  not  be  destroyed — it  cannot  be  supposed  to 
have  gone  off  into  space — it  must  have  simply  been  reserved  to 
constitute  at  the  last,  a  means  of  sustaining  the  many  operations  of 
which  the  planets  were  destined  to  be  the  theatre."  We  cannot 
understand  why  this  heat  may  not  be  supposed  to  have  passed  off 
into  space — and  still  less  can  we  comprehend  how  it  can  have 
passed  to  the  sun,  when,  by  the  hypothesis,  the  genesis  of 
the  sun,  with  its  attendant  planets  and  satellites,  is  to  be 
explained  by  the  continual  escape  of  heat  from  the  contracting 
mass.  We  see  signalized  here  the  extreme,  unscientific  haste  with 
which  the  author  frequently  leaps  to  his  conclusions.  In  the  first 
instance  he  asks,  whether  we  may  not  presume  that  the  escaped 
heat  has  gone  to  constitute  the  luminous  atmosphere  of  the  sun, 
the  proper  answer  to  which  would  be,  certainly  not,  unless  we 
presume  at  the  same  time  that  the  whole  ground-work  of  the 


416  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

hypothesis,  as  expounded  up  to  the  very  sentence  preceding  this, 
has  disappeared.  And  then  he  passes,  without  assigning  any  rea- 
son except  the  statement  of  two  alternatives,  which  are  by  no 
means  exhaustive  of  the  possibilities  of  the  case,  to  the  peremptory 
conclusion,  that  this  heat  must  have  been  reserved  to  constitute  a 
magazine  at  the  centre  for  the  use  of  the  system.  But  how 
reserved,  and  where  1  and  how  gathered  around  the  sun  after  the 
cooling  process  has  reached  its  limit  ? 

A  like  gross  inconsistency  appears  in  his  attempt  to  explain  the 
apparent  condition  of  the  moon.  The  characteristics  of  the  moon's 
surface  forbid  the  idea  that  it  is  at  present  a  theatre  of  life  like  the 
earth,  but  the  author  warns  us  against  drawing  the  inference  that 
it  never  can  become  so.  "  The  moon  may  be  only  in  the  earlier 
stage  of  the  progress  through  which  the  earth  has  already  gone. 
Seas  may  yet  fill  the  profound  hollows  of  the  surface — an  atmo- 
sphere may  spread  over  the  whole."  The  rugged  state  of  the 
moon  is  thus  to  be  explained  by  the  earlier  stage  of  growth  at 
which  this  body  now  is  as  compared  with  the  earth.  But  it  has 
been  seen  that  the  hypothesis  requires  that  the  moon  should  have 
been  thrown  off  long  before  the  earth  had  contracted  to  its  present 
dimensions :  and  on  the  page  but  one  preceding  this  we  find  it 
stated  that "  the  time  intervening  between  the  formation  of  the 
moon  and  the  earth's  diminution  to  its  present  size  was  probably 
one  of  those  vast  sums*  in  which  astronomy  deals  so  largely,  but 
which  the  mind  altogether  fails  to  grasp."  In  accounting  for  the 
invariable  size  and  temperature  of  the  earth,  he  again  betrays  his 
ignorance  of  the  elementary  truths  of  physical  science.  "  The 
central  heat,"  he  says,  "  has  for  ages  reached  a  fixed  point,  at 
which  it  will  probably  remain  for  ever,  as  the  non-conducting 
quality  of  the  cool  crust  absolutely  prevents  it  from  suffering  any 
diminution."  It  is  true  that  there  is  no  process  of  shrinking  now 
going  on  in  our  globe,  which  we  have  any  means  of  detecting.  A 
very  slight  diminution  of  the  diameter  would  affect  the  diurnal 
revolution  of  our  globe,  and  it  is  demonstrable  that  the  time  of  this 
revolution  has  not  varied  the  three  hundredth  part  of  a  second  for 
the  last  two  thousand  years.  And  yet  the  hypothesis  of  the  author 
would  seem  to  require  that  the  continual  escape  of  heat  from  the 
central  fires  of  the  earth  should  lead  to  a  still  further  condensation 
of  its  mass.  This  difficulty  he  meets,  with  sufficient  boldness,  by 
denying  any  degree  of  conducting  power  to  the  earth's  crust,  so 
that  all  the  heat  which  existed  within  when  the  surface  acquired, 
ages  ago,  this  marvellous  power,  has  been  retained  ever  since,  and 
is  now  imprisoned  beyond  all  hope  of  escape.  There  cannot  be 
many  of  our  readers  who  need  the  information  that  this  non-con- 
ducting quality  of  the  crust  is  a  pure  fiction.  If  the  crust  be  im- 
pervious to  heat,  why  is  it  that  after  we  have  reached,  at  the  depth 
of  some  sixty  or  eighty  feet,  the  region  of  invariable  temperature, 
we  find  the  heat  increasing  upon  us  with  every  foot  that  we  de- 
scend ?    It  is  indeed  true  that  the  crust  has  a  very  low  conducting 


I 


II 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION.  417 

power.  Only  a  few  years  since  Mairan  and  Bailly  agreed  in  making 
the  amount  of  heat  received  from  the  interior  of  the  globe  to  be, 
in  summer,  twenty-nine  times,  and  in  winter,  four  hundred  times 
that  received  from  the  sun ;  a  calculation  which  gave  promise 
of  a  speedy  congelation  from  the  rapid  dissipation  of  the  internal 
heat.  But^  Baron  Fourier  succeeded  in  proving  that  the  ther- 
mometric  effect  of  the  central  heat  upon  the  surface  of  the  globe  did 
not  exceed  the  thirtieth  part  of  a  degree  of  the  centigrade  ther- 
mometer. The  author  of  the  Vestiges  of  Creation,  however,  is 
the  first  philosopher  who  has  ventured  to  affirm  that  there  is 
absolutely  no  escape  of  heat  from  the  interior,  and  to  assign  as 
the  reason  the  non-conducting  quality  of  the  crust.  If  the  interior 
of  the  earth  is,  as  many  considerations  would  lead  us  to  suppose, 
in  an  incandescent  state,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  portion, 
however  small,  of  its  heat  must  escape  and  fly  off  into  space. 
The  unshrinking  dimensions  of  the  earth,  which  would  seem  to  be 
in  opposition  to  this  conclusion,  might  be  better  accounted  for  by 
supposing  that  the  contraction  in  some  of  the  elements  of  the 
mass,  due  to  this  loss  of  heat,  was  balanced  by  an  equivalent  expan- 
sion of  others  in  passing  from  a  liquid  to  a  solid  state  ;  or  in  many 
other  ways,  rather  than  by  denying  that  any  heat  is  lost,  and 
assigning  for  it  a  purely  fanciful  reason. 

It  ought  to  be  stated,  in  justice  to  Laplace,  that  the  author  of 
this  work  has,  in  many  respects,  misapprehended  his  nebular  hypo- 
thesis ;  and  that  objections  therefore  may  be  justly  taken  against 
his  statement  of  it,  which  would  not  lie  against  it  in  the  form  given 
to  it  by  its  proposer.  The  method  by  which  he  explains  the  shell- 
ing off  of  planets  and  satellites,  through  the  hardening  of  the  outer 
surface  and  the  resistance  thus  opposed  to  the  attractive  force  of 
the  interior  mass,  is  absurd  upon  its  very  face,  and  utterly  insuffi- 
cient for  the  explanation  of  the  facts  of  the  case.  Admitting  the 
action  of  the  principles  stated  as  ruling  the  case,  a  spherical  shell 
would  be  separated,  and  not  an  annular  ring.  The  author  con- 
founds these  together,  speaking  in  one  sentence  of  the  separation 
of  "  the  solidifying  crust,"  and  in  the  next  terming  this  crust  "  a 
detached  ring  ;"  not  only  without  any  explanation  of  the  manner 
in  which  the  spherical  shell  has  become  transformed  into  a  circular 
band,  but  apparently  without  any  idea  that  he  is  speaking  of  two 
very  different  things.  Into  this  difficulty  he  has  been  betrayed  by 
introducing  the  comparative  solidification  of  the  crust  as  the  cause 
of  the  separation.  This  separation  is  effected,  according  to 
Laplace's  hypothesis,  not  by  the  hardening  of  the  surface,  but  by 
the  accumulation  of  matter  in  the  equatorial  region.  In  a  fluid 
body  revolving  upon  an  axis,  the  matter  would  be  heaped  up  at 
the  equator ;  and  the  centrifugal  force  of  the  outer  portion  of  the 
protruding  belt  thus  formed  being  greater  than  of  any  other  por- 
tion of  the  mass,  a  point  would  at  length  be  reached  at  which  there  1^ 
would  be  an  exact  equilibrium  between  this  force  and  the  central 
attraction.      An  annular  ring  would  then   be  separated,  which. 

27 


418  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

might,  as  in  the  case  of  Saturn's  rings,  remain  entire,  or  break  up 
and  re-unite  in  a  satellite. 

It  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  multiply  these  special  criticisms 
until  the  reader  would  be  abundantly  satisfied,  that  whatever  may 
be  the  merits  of  the  nebular  hypothesis  as  expounded  by  Laplace, 
in  the  hands  of  this  author  it  is  hopelessly  encumbered  with  absur- 
dities and  contradictions.  If  this  hypothesis  admitted  of  no  better 
statement  and  defence,  we  should  be  compelled  to  dismiss  it  at 
once  as  one  of  the  hasty,  vague  guesses  so  often  made  by  unau- 
thorized intruders  upon  the  scientific  domain.  But  we  are  willing, 
so  far  as  this  part  of  his  work  is  concerned,  to  substitute  the 
sage  conjecture  of  Laplace  for  his  blundering  guess. 

We  proceed,  under  the  guidance  of  the  author,  to  trace  out  the 
vestiges  of  creation  as  they  are  found  upon  our  own  globe.     The 
earth,  when  first  separated  from  the  solar  mass,  filled  the  moon's 
orbit,  its  diameter  being  sixty  times  as  great  as  at  present.     At 
that  time  it  occupied  twenty-nine  and  a  half  days  in  rotating  upon 
its  axis.     After  throwing  off  the  moon  it  continued  to  shrink  and 
cool,  until  it  became  stationary  at  its  present  dimensions.     At  this 
period  the  outer  crust  was  a  crystalline  rock,  such  as  granite, 
which  was  the  condition  into  which  the  great  bulk  of  the  solids  of 
the  earth  passed  from  their  nebulous  state.     At  the  same  time 
water  was  condensed  from  the  atmosphere,  and  covered  the  crys- 
talHne  mass  with  seas  and  oceans.     These  seas,  in  consequence  of 
the  unevenness  of  the  crystalline  surface  occasioned  by  local  ine- 
qualities in  the  cooling  of  the  substance,  were  of  enormous  depth, 
some  of  them  not  less  than  a  hundred  miles,  however  much  more. 
A  process  of  disintegration  would,  under  these   circumstances, 
commence,  which  would  be  quickened  by  the  great  heat  of  the 
water.     The  matter  thus  disintegrated  would  be  carried  off  and 
deposited  in  the  neighbouring  depths,  thus  giving  origin  to  the 
earliest  stratified  rocks,  which  are  composed  of  the  same  materi- 
als as  the  original  granite,  but  in  new  forms  and  combinations. 
These  sedimentary  rocks  have  not  been  permitted  to  remain  in 
their  original  position.     The  pressure  of  the  melted  mass  below 
has  protruded   them   up   in   inclined   strata,  and  in  many  cases 
the    granite    in    a   state    of   fusion    has    forced   itself   through, 
and   cooled   in  irregular   masses.     As  yet   there   are   found  no 
traces  of  organic  Ute,  but  these  appear   when  we  arrive  at  the 
next  series   of  rocks.     The    oldest   remains   are    of  zoophytes, 
mollusca,  and   fishes.     Later  in   the    history  of  the   earth,  and 
separated  by  an  immense  period  from  the  preceding  formation, 
for  all  these  successive  vestiges  of  creation  are  supposed  to  be 
at  a  vast  remove  from  each  other,  land  plants  and  animals  begin 
to  appear.     As  the  earth  itself  undergoes  its  series  of  transforma- 
tions, a  corresponding  change  takes  place  in  the  prevalent  forms 
m  of  life.     New  animals  are  found  when  a  new  condition  of  things 
'  appears  adapted  to  their  support.     While  through  vast  periods  in 
which  a  thousand  years  were   but  as  one   day,  changes  were 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION.  419 

slowly  wrought  by  the  combined  action  of  air,  water,  and  fire, 
upon  the  surface  of  the  earth,  whenever  any  new  pabulum  of  life 
was  elaborated,  a  new  race  of  animals  appeared  with  organs 
fitted  to  the  existing  condition  of  things.  Most  of  these  races 
became  extinct,  as  the  progress  of  change  unfitted  the  earth  for 
their  abode,  and  left  in  their  fossil  remains  the  data  for  this  pri- 
meval history.  The  author  traces  these  successive  changes  up 
to  the  point  at  which  the  land  and  sea  having  come  into  their 
present  relations,  and  the  former  having  acquired,  in  its  principal 
continents,  the  necessary  irregularity  of  surface,  the  earth  became 
fitted  for  the  occupancy  of  a  tenant  equipped  like  man. 

This  part  of  the  work,  like  the  account  of  the  nebular  hypo- 
thesis, is  full  of  blunders.  The  author  writes  as  if  he  had  been  at 
a  geological  feast,  and  come  away  with  the  scraps.  The  most 
recent  discoveries  are  strangely  blended  with  antiquated  blunders, 
crude  hypotheses  are  mingled  with  facts,  and  bold,  unqualified 
assertions  are  made  for  which  we  have  not  one  particle  of  evi- 
dence. It  would  be  easy  to  sustain  each  of  these  charges  by 
abundant  specifications,  but  to  go  over  the  geological  argument 
in  detail  would  occupy  more  space  than  we  can  devote  to  the 
subject,  and  we  hope  to  give  sufficient  evidence,  without  this,  of 
the  unsoundness  of  the  author's  hypothesis,  and  of  his  incompe- 
tency to  deal  with  a  scientific  subject. 

Thus  far  we  have  only  the  ordinary  speculations  of  recent 
geologists,  in  accordance  with  which  the  matter  composing  the 
universe,  in  virtue  of  properties  inherent,  or  originally  implanted 
in  it  without  any  action  upon  it  from  without,  is  supposed  to  have 
passed  through  successive  changes  until  it  has  reached  its  present 
form.     But  we  now  arrive  at  a  startling  peculiarity  in  this  author's 
hypothesis,  his  account  of  the  origin  and  development  of  vegeta- 
ble and  animal  life.     His  position  is,  in  brief,  that  life,  in  ail  its 
forms  and  with  all  its  endowments,  is  evolved  through  the  action 
of  mechanical  and  chemical  causes.     The  fundamental  form  of 
organic  being  is  supposed  to  be  a  globule,  having  a  new  globule 
forming  within  itself,  by  which  it  is  in  time  discharged,  and  which 
is  again  followed  by  another  and  another  in  endless  succession. 
The  production  of  this  globule  is  a  purely  chemical  process,  which 
may  be  any  day  discovered  and  repeated  in  the  laboratory.     But 
the  rudimental  vesicle,  which  is  the  simplest  form  of  organization, 
not  only  propagates  itself,  it  gives  birth  also  to  the  next  higher 
grade  of  being.     There  is  an  inherent  tendency  in  matter,  work- 
ing itself  out  through  mechanical  and  chemical  laws,  to  ascend 
from  the  inorganic  to  the  organic,  and  then  through  successive 
degrees  of  organization  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest.     The 
most  complex  form  of  vegetable  life  was  evolved  in  a  direct  line 
of  natural  succession  from  the  simplest, — the  most  perfect  vege- 
table, besides  perpetuating  its  own  type,  gave  birth  to  the  rudest 
animal,  and  each  form  of  animal  life  again  evolved  a  form  supe- 
rior to  itself  until  the  appearance  of  man,  the  foremost  of  animals, 


^^  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

arrested  as  yet  the  progress  of  improvement.  But  we  have  no 
good  reason  to  conclude  that  this  process  is  consummated.  The 
present  race  suits  the  existing  condition  of  our  planet, — but  the 
world  is  undergoing  changes  which  may  make  it  a  fitting  field  of 
action  for  a  higher  race  than  the  rude  and  impulsive  one  which 
now  inhabit  it.  "  There  then  may  be  occasion  for  a  nobler  type 
of  humanity,  which  shall  complete  the  zoological  circle  on  this 
planet,  and  realize  some  of  the  dreams  of  the  purest  spirits  of  the 
present  race." 

The  genealogy  of  man  extends  thus  in  a  direct  line  back  to  the 
original  nebulous  matter  of  which  the  universe  was  composed. 
All  his  attributes  of  body  and  of  mind  are  so  many  modifications 
of  matter,  produced  without  any  extraneous  interference,  by  the 
regular  operation  of  natural  causes.  Thought  is  but  the  highest 
form  as  yet  known  to  us  of  the  same  substance  which  in  its  rudest 
form  composed  the  nebulous  masses  of  infinite  space ;  and  the 
passage  from  one  of  these  states  to  another,  was  effected  solely 
by  the  inherent  qualities  of  matter.  What  further  capabilities  of 
matter  may  be  now  lying  dormant,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  The 
great  law  of  development,  in  obedience  to  which  the  universe 
has  passed  from  a  chaotic  state  to  its  present  ordered  forms  and 
motions,  has  not  yet  completed  its  work.  New  heavens  and  a 
new  earth,  with  new  races  of  beings  fitted  to  occupy  them,  may 
be  contained  within  the  undeveloped  capacities  of  the  present 
order  of  things.  The  universe,  with  its  organic  as  well  as  inor- 
ganic forms,  has  reached  its  present  state,  and  will  pass  on  through 
all  future  changes,  without  any  creative  act  or  guiding  control  on 
the  part  of  its  Maker.  When  created,  it  was  created  complete  in 
itself. 

In  support  of  the  hypothesis  that  the  organic  world  has  been 
created,  as  the  author  expresses  it,  by  law,  or  in  other  words,  that 
it  has  been  successively  evolved  by  the  operation  of  natural  causes 
from  the  primitive  form  of  matter,  we  have,  in  the  first  place,  the 
analogy  of  the  inorganic  world.  We  have  evidence  that  different 
solar  systems,  with  their  suns,  planets,  and  satellites,  have  been 
built  up  and  set  in  motion  through  the  inherent  qualities  of  matter, 
without  the  aid  of  any  directing  intelligence.  In  like  manner  we 
see  that  our  globe  has  passed  spontaneously  through  successive 
changes  of  state,  in  each  of  which  it  has  been  tenanted  by  such 
forms  of  vegetable  and  animal  life  as  it  was  fitted  to  support.  As 
the  construction  of  the  earth  and  the  diflferent  changes  it  has 
undergone,  are  the  result  of  natural  laws,  why  should  we  not  sup- 
pose that  the  contemporaneous  changes  in  the  organic  world  were 
produced  m  like  manner?  "Why  should  we  suppose  that  the 
august  Bemg  who  brought  all  these  countless  worlds  into  form  by 
the  simple  establishment  of  a  natural  principle  flowing  from  his 
mind,  was  to  interfere  personally  and  specially  on  every  occasion 
when  a  new  shell-fish  or  reptile"  was  to  be  ushered  into  existence 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION.  421 

on  one  of  these  worlds  ?  Surely  this  idea  is  too  ridiculous  to  be 
for  a  moment  entertained." 

A  presumption  having  been  thus  established  in  favour  of  an 
organic  creation  by  law,  the  author  proceeds  to  inquire  whether 
science  can  furnish  any  facts  to  confirm  it.  Such  facts  he  thinks 
he  has  found,  though  he  admits  that  they  are  comparatively  few 
and  scattered.  The  character  of  some  of  these  facts  shows 
strongly  the  difficulty  under  which  he  felt  himself  to  labour  in  this 
part  of  the  subject.  Crystallization,  we  are  told,  is  confessedly  a 
phenomenon  of  inorganic  matter,  and  its  forms  have  a  mimic 
resemblance,  in  some  instances  beautifully  complete,  to  vegetable 
forms.*  Electricity  also,  in  its  passage,  leaves  behind  it  marks 
which  resemble,  in  the  positive  direction,  the  ramifications  of  a 
tree,  and  in  the  negative,  the  bulbous  or  the  spreading  root.  "  A 
plant  thus  appears  as  a  thing  formed  on  the  basis  of  a  natural 
electrical  operation — the  brush  realized."  This  argument  of  course 
admits  o(  no  reply.  There  is  no  reasoning  against  a  metaphor. 
We  should  as  soon  think  of  attempting  to  refute  the  man  who 
declared  that  he  had  such  a  cold  in  his  head  that  it  froze  the  water 
with  which  he  washed  his  face.  There  can  be  no  surer  mark  of 
an  unphilosophical  mind  than  this  hasty  grasping  after  vague 
analogies. 

In  collecting  his  few  and  scattered  facts  in  support  of  his  hypo- 
thesis, the  author  next  adduces  the  production  of  urea  and  alan- 
toin  by  artificial  means,  and  infers  hence  the  possibility  of  forming 
in  the  laboratory  all  the  principles  of  vegetable  and  animal  life. 
It  is  also  ascertained  that  the  basis  of  all  vegetable  and  animal 
substances  consists  of  nucleated  cells,  that  is  cells  or  globules 
having  a  granule  within  them.  All  nutriment  is  converted  into 
such  cells  before  the  process  of  assimilation  ;  the  tissues  are  formed 
from  them :  the  ovum  is  originally  only  a  cell  with  a  contained 
granule.  "  So  that  all  animated  nature  may  be  said  to  be  based 
on  this  mode  of  origin,  the  fundamental  form  of  organic  being  is  a 
globule,  having  a  new  globule  forming  within  itself^  by  which  it  is 
in  time  discharged."  If  then  these  globules  could  be  produced 
artificially  from  inorganic  elements,  the  possibility  of  the  com- 
mencement of  animated  creation  by  the  ordinary  laws  of  nature 
might  be  considered  as  established.  "  Now  it  was  given  out  some 
years  ago  by  a  French  physiologist,  that  globules  could  be  produc- 
ed in  albumen  by  electricity.  If,  therefore,  these  globules  be  iden- 
tical with  the  cells  which  are  now  held  to  be  reproductive,  it  might 
be  said  that  the  production  of  albumen  by  artificial  means  is  the 
only  step  in  the  process  wanting."  We  must  leave  all  comment 
upon  this  conclusion  to  the  inimitable  Touchstone  ;  "  Your  If  is  the 
only  true  philosopher :  much  virtue  in  If." 

The  next  class  of  facts  upon  which  the  author  relies  are  those 

*  Under  this  head  the  author  gives  without  authority,  but  we  suppose  from 
Brande's  Journal,  an  account  of  the  old  and  now  repudiated  experiment  of  the 
.Jrbor  Dianae. 


4S^  vesttgeS  op  CREAfiON: 

which  go  to  support  the  doctrine  of  spontaneous,  or  as  he  terms  it, 
aboriginal  generation.  This  doctrine,  exploded  for  many  years, 
has  been  recently  revived,  and  is  of  course  warmly  espoused  by  the 
author  of  the  treatise  under  review.  In  support  of  it  he  contends 
that  animalcules  and  vegetable  mould  may  be  produced  under  cir- 
cumstances that  exclude  the  presence  of  ova  or  seeds.  Entozoa,  or 
internal  parasitic  animals,  are  also  found  within  the  viscera  of  other 
animals,  where  it  is  impossible  that  the  living  animal  or  the  ova  of 
such  as  are  oviparous,  could  have  been  conveyed  through  the  blood- 
vessels. How  can  their  existence  be  accounted  for,  except  upon 
the  hypothesis  of  their  spontaneous  generation  ?  And  still  further, 
organic  life  has  actually  been  produced  in  the  laboratory.  Mr. 
Crosse,  in  the  course  of  some  experiments  made  a  few  years  since, 
had  occasion  to  pass  a  current  of  electricity  through  a  saturated 
solution  of  silicate  of  potash,  when  he  observed  to  his  surprise 
insects  appearing  at  one  of  the  poles  of  the  battery.  He  repeated 
the  experiment  with  nitrate  of  copper,  with  the  same  result.  Dis- 
couraged by  the  reception  his  experiments  met  with,  he  discon- 
tinued them  ;  but  they  were  subsequently  repeated,  with  precisely 
similar  results,  by  Mr.  Weekes,  of  Sandwich.  Here  then  we  have 
an  instance  in  which  an  organized  being  has  been  produced  by  the 
operation  of  natural  laws  from  inorganic  elements.  It  is  true  this 
creature  of  the  laboratory  was  but  a  microscope  insect,  but  it 
is  sufficient  to  decide  the  question  of  the  aboriginal  creation  of  a 
living  organism. 

This  experiment  will  doubtless  have  all  the  force  claimed  for  it 
by  the  author  in  its  bearing  upon  his  system,  with  all  who  can 
receive  his  interpretation  of  it.  There  is  no  question,  about  the 
facts  of  the  case.  These  no  doubt  occurred  precisely  as  related 
by  Messrs.  Crosse  and  Weekes.  That  is,  animalcular  insects  of 
the  acarus  kind,  appeared  in  the  different  solutions  through  which 
an  electric  current  was  passed.  The  only  question  is  respecting 
the  proper  interpretation  of  these  facts.  The  author  contends  that 
it  was  a  true  creation  of  organic  life  from  inorganic  elements. 
This  interpretation  is  favoured  by  the  fact  that  the  experiment  was 
made  by  two  independent  observers,  and  in  both  cases  resulted  in 
the  production  of  a  hitherto  unknown  insect :  that  every  precau- 
tion was  taken  by  distilling  the  water,  heating  the  substance  of  the 
silicate,  and  baking  the  wood  of  the  apparatus,  to  destroy  any  ova 
which  they  might  contain,  and  the  atmosphere  was  effectually 
excluded  during  the  course  of  the  experiment ;  that  one  of  the 
solutions  employed,  nitrate  of  copper,  is  a  deadly  poison,  and  would 
have  destroyed  therefore  the  vitality  of  any  ova  which  might  be 
contained  in  it.  In  reply  to  this  we  remark,  that  Mr.  Crosse's 
experiments  have  been  repeated  by  others,  and  without  success  in 
every  instance  except  that  of  Mr.  Weekes,  a  name  known  as  yet 
to  science  only  through  this  dubious  experiment.  The  insect  pro- 
duced, instead  of  being  a  new  one,  is  only  a  hitherto  undescribed 
variety,  among  myriads,  of  a  well-known  species.     The  nitrate  of 


TESTIGES    OF   CREATION.  423 

copper  could  not  be  expected  to  destroy  the  ovum,  if  the  insect 
lived  in  it ;  and  some  species  of  the  acarus  are  known  to  be  so 
tenacious  of  life  that  they  will  live  in  boiling  water,  and  in  alcohol. 
These  experiments  moreover  occupied  several  weeks,  in  one  case, 
eleven  months,  for  their  completion.  It  seems  to  us  much  more 
rational  to  suppose  that  notwithstanding  the  precautions  taken  to 
destroy  and  then  to  exclude  the  ova  of  the  insect,  some  of  them 
lived  through  the  heat  applied  for  their  destruction,  or  gained 
access  afterwards,  during  the  long  course  of  the  experiment,  than 
that  a  result  was  produced  not  only  perfectly  novel,  but  in  palpa- 
ble contradiction  to  every  other  experiment  upon  the  law  of  cause 
and  effect.  That  a  living  being  should  be  produced  by  mechanical 
causes  acting  upon  inorganic  matter,  is  not  only  a  "  novelty  in 
science,"  without  any  kindred  or  relative  phenomena  lying  in  the 
same  direction,  but  it  is  opposed  to  the  whole  body  of  our  positive 
knowledge.  That  organic  life  can  be  produced  only  by  organic 
life,  is  a  law  of  nature  generalized  from  innumerable  instances. 
There  is  no  law  which  rests  upon  a  more  general  induction.  It 
may  possibly  be  found  hereafter  that  this  is  but  a  particular  case 
of  some  more  general  law,  but  no  candid  or  philosophical  mind  will 
be  prepared  to  abandon  it  for  such  experiments  as  those  of  Messrs. 
Crosse  and  Weekes.  To  invalidate  it  upon  such  slender  and  doubt- 
ful ground,  betrays  a  hasty  credulity  or  an  over-anxious  zeal  to 
support  a  foregone  conclusion,  utterly  inconsistent  with  a  philoso- 
phical mind.  The  truth  is,  Mr.  Crosse's  manufacture  of  insects 
was  one  of  those  blunders  of  the  laboratory,  of  which  like 
instances  are  not  wanting,  in  which  the  result  was  hastily  announ- 
ced before  it  had  been  subjected  to  a  sufficiently  careful  scrutiny. 
It  has  been  rejected  by  every  man  of  science  in  both  hemispheres, 
and  we  suspect  that  Mr.  Crosse  himself  laid  aside  his  creative 
battery,  not  because  of  the  unfavourable  reception  given  to  his 
discovery  by  the  scientific  public,  but  because  he  himself  became 
satisfied  of  its  unsoundness,  and  was  glad  to  abandon  it  as  speedily 
and  quietly  as  possible.  We  know  nothing  of  his  merits  save  from 
this  one  essay,  but  if  he  possesses  any  scientific  claims,  as  we  are 
rather  disposed  to  think  he  may  from  his  hasty  abandonment  of 
this  experiment,  he  will  hardly  thank  the  author  of  the  Vestiges  of 
Creation  for  dragging  it  forth  from  the  obscurity  into  which  it  was 
passing,  and  placing  it  in  the  foreground  of  his  theory. 

The  passage  from  inorganic  matter  to  organized  forms  having 
been  thus  accounted  for,  the  author  proceeds  to  explain  and  defend 
his  theory  of  the  progressive  development  of  superior  from  inferior 
forms  of  being.  There  is  an  obvious  gradation  among  the  families 
of  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms,  from  the  simple  lichen  and 
animalcule  up  to  the  highest  order  of  dicotyledonous  trees  and  the 
mammaha.  Though  this  gradation  does  not  ascend  uniformly 
along  a  single  line  upon  which  all  forms  of  life  can  be  regularly 
placed,  yet  it  is  incontestable  that  there  are  general  appearances 
of  a  scale  beginning  with  the  simple  and  ascending  to  the  complex. 


424  VESTIGES  OF  CREATION. 

However  different  the  external  forms  of  animals,  it  is  very  remark- 
able that  they  are  all  but  variations  of  a  fundamental  plan,  vv^hich 
can  be  traced  through  the  whole  as  a  basis.  Starting  from  the 
primeval  germ  which  is  the  representative  of  a  particular  order  of 
full-grovm  animals,  we  find  all  others  to  be  merely  advances  from 
that  type,  with  the  extension  of  endowments  and  modifications  of 
forms  which  are  required  in  each  particular  case.  Different  organs 
are  found  to  fulfil  analogous  purposes  in  different  animals.  Thus 
the  mammalia  breathe  by  lungs,  the  fishes  by  gills.  In  mammifers 
the  gills  exist  and  act  at  an  early  stage  of  the  foetal  state,  but 
afterwards  go  back  and  appear  no  more,  while  the  lungs  are 
developed ;  while  in  fishes,  on  the  other  hand,  the  gills  only  are 
fully  developed,  and  the  lungs  appear  only  in  the  rudimentary  form 
of  an  air-bladder.  In  many  instances,  too,  a  particular  structure 
is  found  advanced  to  a  certain  point  in  a  particular  set  of  animals, 
as  feet  in  the  serpent  tribe,  although  of  no  use,  but  being  carried  a 
little  forward  becomes  useful  in  the  next  set  of  animals  in  the  scale. 
Such  are  the  undeveloped  mammae  of  the  male  human  being.  One 
species  thus  hints  at  or  prophesies  another  higher  on  the  scale. 
The  higher  also  often  bears  traces  of  the  lower  from  which  it  has 
come.  Thus  the  os  coccygis  in  man  is  neither  more  nor  less  than 
the  bones  of  a  tail,  or  as  our  author  phrases  it,  a  caudal  extremity 
existing  in  an  undeveloped  state. 

But  the  most  interesting  class  of  facts  connected  with  the  laws 
of  organic  development  yet  remain.  It  has  been  found  that  each 
animal  passes  in  the  course  of  its  germinal  history  through  a  series 
of  changes  resembling  the  permanent  forms  of  the  various  orders 
of  animals  inferior  to  it  in  the  scale. 

"  Thus,  for  instance,  an  insect  standing  at  the  head  of  the  articulated  animals 
is,  in  the  larva  state,  a  true  annelid,  or  worm,  the  annelida  being  the  lowest  in  the 
same  class.  The  embryo  of  a  crab  resembles  the  perfect  animal  of  the  inferior 
order  myriapoda,  and  passes  through  all  the  forms  of  transition  which  characte- 
rize the  intermediate  tribes  of  Crustacea.  The  frog,  for  some  time  after  its  birth, 
is  a  fish  with  external  gills,  and  other  organs  fitting  it  for  an  aquatic  life,  all  of 
which  are  changed  as  it  advances  to  maturity,  and  becomes  a  land  animal.  The 
mammifer  only  passes  through  still  more  stages,  according  to  its  higher  place  in 
the  scale.  Nor  is  man  himself  exempt  from  this  law.  His  first  form  is  that 
which  is  permanent  in  the  animalcule.  His  organization  gradually  passes  through 
conditions  generally  resembling  a  fish,  a  reptile,  a  bird,  and  the  lower  mammalia, 
before  it  attains  its  specific  maturity.  At  one  of  the  last  stages  of  his  foetal 
career,  he  exhibits  an  intermaxillary  bone,  which  is  characteristic  of  the  perfect 
ape ;  this  is  suppressed,  and  he  may  then  be  said  to  take  leave  of  the  simial  type, 
and  become  a  true  human  creature.  Even,  as  we  shall  see,  the  varieties  of  hiB 
race  are  represented  in  the  progressive  development  of  an  individual  of  the  high- 
est, before  we  see  the  adult  Caucasian,  the  highest  point  yet  attained  in  the  anr- 
m&i  sccLic* 

Thus  the  brain  of  man  resembles  in  the  early  stage  of  foetal 
growth  the  form  which  is  permanent  in  the  fish.  It  then  passes 
successively  through  stages  which  represent  the  brain  of  the  rep- 
tile, the  bird,  the  mammalia,  until  it  finally  takes  on  a  form  which 


1 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION.  425 

transcends  them  all,  and  becomes  the  brain  of  man.  The  heart 
also  passes  through  a  similar  set  of  changes,  in  which  it  seems  to 
rehearse  the  history  of  the  process  by  which  through  a  series  of 
ages  it  has  become  transformed  from  the  heart  of  an  animalcule 
to  that  of  a  man. 

We  are  thus  led  to  the  supposition  that  the  first  step  in  the  crea- 
tion of  life  was  a  chemico-electric  operation  by  which  simple  germ- 
inal vesicles  were  produced,  and  that  there  was  then  a  progress 
from  the  simplest  forms  of  being  to  the  next  more  complicated, 
and  this,  through  the  ordinary  process  of  generation.  It  is 
true  indeed  that  what  we  ordinarily  see  of  nature  would  lead  us 
to  suppose  that  each  species  invariably  produces  its  like.  But 
our  observation  of  nature  covers  but  a  limited  period.  The 
time  that  has  elapsed  since  the  appearance  of  man  upon  this 
planet,  is  but  a  small  fraction  of  the  geological  periods  which 
preceded  his  birth.  The  law  that  like  produces  its  ttk«,  is 
in  all  probability  only  a  partial  generalization  which  would  give 
place  to  a  higher  law  upon  a  broader  induction.  We  may  bor- 
row an  illustration  here  from  the  celebrated  calculating  engine 
of  Mr.  Babbage.  This  machine  is  so  constructed  that  while  in 
motion  it  will  present  successively  to  the  eye  of  the  observer  a 
series  of  numbers  proceeding  according  to  certain  laws.  The 
machine  may  be  so  adjusted  that  the  numbers  shall  follow  each 
other  according  to  a  regular  law  up  to  any  assignable  point,  and 
then  the  next  number  shall  vary  from  the  law,  which  shall  be 
restored  again  in  the  succeeding  one.  Thus  it  may  present  in 
succession  the  natural  numbers  up  to  the  one  hundred  millionth 
term,  the  next  term  shall  depart  from  this  order,  and  the  next 
return  to  it  again.  The  observer  who  should  watch  the  operation 
of  this  machine  would  surely  conclude  that  the  law  which 
governed  it  was  the  series  of  natural  numbers.  The  space  for  the 
induction  of  this  law  may  be  made  of  any  assignable  extent ;  it 
may  be  made  to  include  as  many  particular  instances  as  there 
have  been  of  the  production  of  organized  beings  since  the  obser- 
vation of  man  commenced  ;  and  yet  it  is  found  that  this  law, 
instead  of  being  the  governing  idea  of  the  machine,  is  but  a  par- 
tial expression  of  the  method  of  its  operation.  So  it  may  be  in 
nature.  Though  each  vegetable  and  animal  brings  forth  only  after 
its  kind,  so  far  as  our  observation  has  extended,  yet  through 
immense  periods,  such  as  geology  deals  with,  it  is  probable  that 
one  species  gave  birth  to  a  different  and  higher  one.  The  gesta- 
tion of  a  single  organism  is  the  work  but  of  a  few  days,  weeks  or 
months  ;  but  the  gestation,  so  to  speak,  of  a  whole  creation  is  a 
matter  probably  involving  enormous  periods  of  time.  "  All  that 
we  can  properly  infer,  therefore,  from  the  apparently  invariable 
production  of  like  by  like,  is,  that  such  is  the  ordinary  procedure 
of  nature  in  the  time  immediately  passing  before  our  eyes.  Mr. 
Babbage's  illustration  powerfully  suggests  that  this  ordinary  pro- 


426  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

cedure  may  be  subordinate  to  a  higher  law  which  only  permits  it 
for  a  time,  and  in  proper  season  interrupts  and  changes  it." 

As  we  do  not  wish  to  recur  again  to  this  mechanical  illustration, 
we  interrupt  our  account  of  the  author's  system  to  make  a  passing 
comment  upon  it.  The  introduction  of  this  illustration  for  the 
purpose  to  which  it  is  applied,  is  of  itself  enough  to  settle  his 
standing  as  a  philosopher.  A  man  of  true  genius  and  of  high 
attainments  may  sometimes  blunder,  but  this  is  such  a  blunder  as 
no  mind  accustomed  to  that  accuracy  of  movement  without  which 
truth  can  never  be  discovered,  though  it  may  be  occasionally 
stumbled  upon,  could  by  possibility  have  made.  It  is  not  by  those 
who  fight  thus  uncertainly,  as  one  beating  the  air,  that  the  cause 
of  sound  philosophy  is  to  be  advanced.  In  Mr.  Babbage's 
machine,  the  effects  produced  are  all  alike,  so  far  as  causation  is 
concerned  in  their  production.  Certain  numbers  are  presented  to 
the  eye,  marked  upon  dial  plates,  moved  by  wheels  which  are 
themselves  set  in  motion  by  the  action  of  a  spring  or  weight. 
The  numbers  presented  have  no  real  differences  from  each  other  ; 
they  are  distinguished  by  certain  abstract  relations  which  the  mind 
establishes  among  them.  When  the  varying  term  is  presented, 
the  real  effect  produced  is  precisely  akin  to  all  that  have  gone 
before  it.  And  yet  this  is  brought  forward  to  prove  that  the  law 
by  which  monkeys  produce  monkeys,  may  be  only  a  particular 
instance  of  a  more  general  law  in  accordance  with  which  at  the 
end  of  some  immense  period  a  monkey  may  produce  a  man.  Let 
us  suppose  that  while  watching  Mr.  Babbage's  machine,  presenting 
to  us  successive  numbers  by  the  revolution  of  its  plates,  we  should 
suddenly  see  one  of  those  plates  resolving  itself  into  types,  and 
these  types  arranging  themselves  in  the  order  of  a  page  of  the 
Paradise  Lost,  or  even  of  the  Vestiges  of  Creation,  is  there  any 
man  in  his  senses  who  would  not  immediately  conclude  that  some 
new  cause  was  now  at  work  ?  The  argument  drawn  from  this 
illustration  is  really  too  absurd  for  refutation.  Its  fallacy  lies  upon 
the  surface.  And  it  is  by  such  considerations  that  men  are  to  be 
persuaded  to  exchange  the  well-settled  faith  of  ages  for  the  great 
law  of  development ! 

The  law  of  development,  the  author  contends,  is  still  daily  seen 
at  work,  though  the  effects  produced  are  somewhat  less  than  a 
transition  from  species  to  species.  Thus  bees,  when  they  have 
lost  their  queen,  manufacture  a  new  one  by  simply  changing 
the  conditions  of  the  larva,  so  that  it  shall  give  birth  to  the  insect 
in  sixteen  instead  of  twenty  days.  The  same  embryo  will 
become  a  female,  a  neuter,  or  a  male,  according  as  it  remains  six- 
teen, twenty  or  twenty-four  days  in  the  larva  state.  Another 
instance,  approaching  more  nearly  to  the  production  of  a  new  spe- 
cies, is  found  in  the  changes  which  different  tribes  of  the  human 
family  undergo  from  a  change  in  their  physical  conditions.  Poor 
diet  and  other  hardships  will  in  course  of  "time  produce  a  promi- 
nence of  the  jaws,  a  recession  and  diminution  of  the  cranium,  and 


TESTIGES    OF    CREATION.  427 

an  elongation  and  attenuation  of  the  limbs ;  and  on  the  other 
hand,  these  peculiarities  will  disappear  under  favourable  treatment. 
Tjiese  facts  fall  indeed  far  short  of  the  transmutation  of  species. 
But  there  is  one  reported  case  in  which  this  has  been  effected  in 
the  vegetable  world.  It  is  said  that  whenever  oats,  sown  at  the 
usual  time,  are  kept  cropped  down  during  summer  and  autumn, 
and  allowed  to  remain  over  winter,  a  thin  crop  of  rye  will  be 
presented  at  the  close  of  the  ensuing  summer. 

The  idea  then  of  the  progress  of  organic  life  is,  that  the  sim- 
plest and  most  primitive  type,  under  a  law  to  which  that  of  like 
production  is  subordinate,  gave  birth  to  the  type  next  above  it, 
and  so  on  to  the  very  highest.  Whether  the  whole  of  any  species 
was  at  once  translated  forward,  or  only  a  few  parents  were  em- 

filoyed  to  give  birth  to  the  new  type,  must  remain  undetermined, 
f  an  entire  species  was  advanced,  the  place  vacated  would  be 
immediately  taken  up  by  the  one  next  below,  so  that  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  new  germinal  vesicle  at  the  bottom  of  the  scale,  would 
be  all  that  was  necessary  to  fill  up  the  vacancy. 

After  attempting  thus  to  establish  his  theory  by  facts  in  natural 
history,  the  author  finds  further  confirmation  in  the  history  of  the 
human  race.  He  enters  into  a  philological  discussion  to  prove 
the  identity  of  the  different  families  of  mankind,  and  then  inquires 
in  what  part  of  the  earth  the  race  may  most  probably  be  sup- 
posed to  have  originated.  Tracing  back  the  history  of  each  of 
the  great  human  families,  we  find  their  lines  converging  to  a 
point  somewhere  in  the  region  of  Northern  India.  This  is  true 
at  least  of  all  except  the  Negro  ;  and,  the  author  adds,  "  of  that 
race  it  may  fairly  be  said,  that  it  is  the  one  most  likely  to  have 
had  an  independent  origin,  seeing  that  it  is  a  type  so  peculiar  in 
an  inveterate  black  colour  and  so  mean  in  development."  We 
find  thus  that  history  is  in  harmony  with  the  theory  which  gene- 
rates man  from  the  monkey,  as  it  traces  the  origin  of  the  race 
to  that  part  of  the  world  where  the  highest  species  of  the  qua- 
drumana  are  to  be  found. 

The  race  at  their  origin  must  of  course  be  supposed  to  have 
existed  in  a  rude  and  barbarous  state,  from  which  they  gradually 
emerged  and  passed  through  the  various  forms  of  civilization 
which  have  appeared.  Here  as  everywhere,  the  author  makes 
the  facts  of  history  bend  to  his  purpose.  There  is  not  in  all 
history  one  well  authenticated  case  of  an  indigenous  civilization. 
We  have  instances  upon  instances  of  nations  and  tribes  that  have 
declined  from  a  comparatively  high  state  of  civilization  into  semi- 
barbarism,  but  not  one  in  which  a  savage  people,  without  inter- 
communication with  others,  has  spontaneously  risen  from  a  rude 
to  a  civilized  state.  But  in  the  face  of  this  uniform  historical  tes- 
timony the  author  seizes  upon  an  account  which  Mr.  Catlin  has 
given  of  a  small  tribe  of  Mandan  Indians  who  were  able  to  con- 
struct fortifications  and  had  made  some  progress  in  the  manu- 
facturing arts,  and  builds  upon  it  his  argument  for  the  inherent 


428  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION.' 

tendencies  of  the  race  to  advance  from  barbarism  to  civilization. 
This  account  is  given  by  a  single  observer  of  a  tribe  that  has 
now  passed  from  existence,  and  that  was  seen  by  him  under  cir- 
cumstances which  would  naturally  lead  his  imagination  to  make 
the  most  of  the  differences  between  them  and  surrounding  tribes. 
If  the  facts  were  as  reported,  of  which  we  stand  in  great  doubt, 
we  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the  history  of  that  tribe,  if 
it  could  be  traced,  would  lead  back  to  a  state  of  still  higher  civi- 
lization. To  this  conclusion  we  are  forced  by  the  concurrent 
testimony  of  all  history,  in  cases  where  it  can  be  distinctly  traced. 
That  which  is  clearly  known  should  be  made  to  illustrate  that 
which  is  doubtful ;  though  this  is  a  principle  which  our  author 
continually  tramples  upon  in  his  reckless  grasping  after  support 
for  his  theory.  A  fanciful  resemblance,  an  extemporaneous 
blunder  of  the  laboratory,  a  rough  guess  of  some  early  geological 
explorer,  an  exaggerated  tale  of  some  imaginative  traveller, 
these  are  eagerly  seized  and  employed  to  establish  real  relations, 
to  oppose  the  most  mature  conclusions  of  scientific  research,  and 
to  contradict  the  uniform  testimony  of  history. 

The  historical  argument  is  followed  by  one  drawn  from  the 
mental  constitution  of  animals.  And  here  of  course  the  grossest 
materialism  opens  upon  us.  Thought,  and  feeling,  too,  are  real 
material  existences,  akin  to  the  imponderable  'bodies  in  nature. 
The  rapidity  of  mental  action  is  explained  by  the  velocity  with 
which  light  and  electricity  are  transmitted.  The  alliances 
between  man  and  the  brute  are  strongly  insisted  upon.  The 
human  intelligence  is  prefigured  in  the  instinct  of  the  lower 
creation,  and  is  different  from  it  in  degree  only,  not  in  kind. 
The  affections  and  passions  of  the  human  heart  all  had  their  pre- 
vious manifestations  in  brutes.  "  The  love  of  the  human  mother 
for  her  babe  was  anticipated  by  nearly  every  humbler  mammal, 
the  carnaria  not  excepted.  The  peacock  strutted,  the  turkey  blus- 
tered, and  the  cock  fought  for  victory,  just  as  human  beings  after- 
wards did,  and  still  do." 

There  is  no  act  of  the  mind,  no  aflfection  of  the  heart,  in  man, 
which  may  not  be  found  in  a  ruder  form  in  some  one  or  more  of  the 
lower  animals.  That  which  is  recognised  as  free-will  in  man  is  only 
"  a  liability  to  flit  from  under  the  control  of  one  feeling  to  the  control 
of  another,  nothing  more  than  a  vicissitude  in  the  supremacy  of  the 
feelings  over  each  other." 

The  absurdities  of  phrenology,  as  might  have  been  anticipated, 
are  fully  endorsed  ;  and  we  are  told  that  the  system  of  mind 
invented  by  Dr.  Gall,  is  "  the  only  one  founded  upon  nature,  or 
which  even  pretends  to  or  admits  of  that  necessary  basis."  In  the 
most  unqualified  contradiction  to  this,  we  assert  that  phrenology 
is  the  only  account  of  mental  operations  with  which  we  are 
acquamted  that  has  not  one  particle  of  support  from  induction.  It 
purports  to  be  a  science  of  observation,  and  yet  flatly  rejects  all 
observation,  and  founds  itself  upon  the  purest  constructions  of  the 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION.  429 

fancy.  It  maintains  the  existence  of  nearly  forty  separate  organs 
of  the  brain,  devoted  to  distinct  functions,  when  every  man  who 
has  ever  dissected  a  brain,  or  seen  one  dissected,  knows  that  there 
are  no  such  organs  there.  As  a  physiological  hypothesis  it  is  as 
absurd  and  groundless,  as  that  one  particular  spot  in  the  stomach 
secretes  the  gastric  juice  for  the  digestion  of  beef,  another  that  of 
mutton,  and  so  on  through  the  whole  list  of  digestible  articles. 
And  as  a  "  system  of  mind,"  as  our  author  terms  it,  it  never  has 
risen  above  contempt  in  the  judgment  of  any  one  competent  to 
form  an  opinion  upon  the  subject.  It  professes  to  make  distinction 
between  mental  acts,  and  assign  these  to  their  several  organs, 
without  pretending  to  furnish  any  test  of  the  degree  of  difference 
necessary  to  constitute  a  difference  of  organs  ;  and  as  the  organs 
themselves  have  no  existence  except  in  the  supposed  necessity 
created  by  the  great  diversity  of  the  mental  operations,  rendering 
it  impossible  that  such  different  work  should  be  performed  by  the 
same  instrument,  it  is  fatal  to  its  claims  as  a  system  of  mental 
philosophy  that  it  gives  us  no  criterion  of  mental  acts.  If  phreno- 
logy be  true,  its  truth  can  only  be  established  by  being  preceded  by 
a  complete  system  of  mental  philosophy.  No  one  who  has  made 
the  human  mind  his  study  could  be  for  an  instant  cajoled  by  the 
fooleries  of  this  pseudo-science.  There  is  not  a  single  problem  in 
the  whole  range  of  metaphysical  science,  upon  which,  if  true,  it 
would  shed  the  least  light.  It  has  accordingly  never  received  the 
sanction  of  one  name  of  note  in  metaphysics  ;  and  it  is  equally 
destitute  of  authority  from  physiologists.  It  has  received  a  certain 
degree  of  consideration  from  the  populace,  for  reasons  which  it 
would  not  be  difficult  to  explain  to  any  one  who  has  ever  been  in 
the  track  of  one  of  the  itinerant  lecturers  upon  its  mysteries  ;  and  it 
has  been  adopted  by  a  few  third  or  fourth-rate  thinkers  because  it 
has  furnished  them  a  basis  on  which  to  build  up  a  system  of  mate- 
rialistic fatalism.  But  it  has  yet  to  receive  its  first  sanction  from 
any  man,  whose  attainments  in  physiology  or  in  mental  science  have 
placed  him  in  the  rank  of  those  entitled  to  speak  with  authority. 
Its  place  has  long  since  been  settled  by  the  only  competent  tribu- 
nal ;  and  if  in  reply  to  this,  we  are  referred  to  Galileo,  Copernicus, 
and  sundry  others  who  were  rejected  by  their  generation,  we  have 
only  to  say  that  we  accept  the  issue  of  an  appeal  to  posterity. 
The  fate  of  the  true  seers  of  the  race,  who  have  been  in  their  day 
cast  out  and  afterwards  exalted  to  the  highest  places  of  honour, 
constitutes  the  stock  in  trade  of  all  adventurers,  from  Mesmer  down 
to  the  last  discoverer  of  a  perpetual  motion  ;  and  we  have  no  desire 
to  deprive  the  phrenologists  of  any  consolation  which  they  may 
draw  from  it. 

The  author  shows  the  grossest  ignorance  in  dealing  with  meta- 
physical questions.  His  language,  which  is  not  ordinarly  deficient 
in  precision,  becomes  here  so  loose  and  vague  as  to  lead  us  to  doubt 
whether  he  has  ever  mastered  the  simplest  facts  in  mental  science. 
Thus  he  defines  perception  as  "the  access  of  such  ideas  (viz. :  of 


430  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

the  external  world)  to  the  brain."  With  still  more  vagueness  and 
barrenness  of  meaning  he  says,  "Conception  and  imagination  appear 
to  be  only  intensities,  so  to  speak,  of  the  state  of  the  brain  in  which 
memory  is  produced."  And  memory  itself  is  said  to  be  "  a  parti- 
cular state  of  each  of  the  faculties,  when  the  ideas  of  objects  once 
formed  by  it  are  revived  or  reproduced,  a  process  which  seems  to  be 
intimately  allied  with  some  of  the  phenomena  of  the  new  science 
of  photography,  when  images  impressed  by  reflection  of  the  sun's 
rays  upon  sensitive  paper  are,  after  a  temporary  obliteration, 
resuscitated  on  the  sheet  being  exposed  to  the  fumes  of  mercury." 
More  senseless  jargon  than  this  we  will  venture  to  say  was  never 
uttered  respecting  mental  phenomena.  Imagination,  an  intensity 
of  that  state  of  the  brain  in  which  memory  is  produced  !  If  this 
be  not  to  darken  knowledge  with  words,  we  know  not  where  it 
can  be  found.  Does  he  mean  that  imagination  is  only  a  more 
intense  kind  of  memory  ?  It  would  seem  to  be  impossible  that 
any  man  could  perpetrate  such  an  absurdity,  and  yet  it  is  the  only 
meaning  which  we  can  educe  from  his  words. 

When  the  author  comes  to  treat,  at  the  close  of  his  work,  of 
"  the  purpose  and  general  condition  of  the  animated  creation,"  he 
is,  as  might  have  been  foreseen,  sadly  at  fault.  What  has  a  mecha- 
nical system  of  the  world  to  do  with  purposes  ?  Upon  what  part 
of  his  theory  can  he  graft  any  general  or  ultimate  ends  ?  How 
can  it  furnish  any  standard  to  discriminate  between  superior  and 
inferior,  better  and  worse  ?  It  is  an  ontology,  deprived  of  deon- 
tology, and  its  highest  affirmation  must  of  necessity  be,  whatever 
is,  is.  The  highest  conception  to  which  it  can  reach  is  pleasure  ; 
and  yet  if  the  pleasurable  feeling  of  a  sensitive  being  and  the  cloud 
that  hangs  in  the  atmosphere,  are  alike  products  of  nature,  who 
shall  say  which  is  better,  this  or  that  ?  That  we  may  not  here  do 
injustice  to  the  author  we  will  quote  his  account  of  the  purpose  of 
creation. 

"  That  enjoyment  is  the  proper  attendant  of  animal  existence  is  pressed  upon 
us  by  all  we  see  and  all  we  experience.  Everywhere  we  perceive  in  the  lower 
creatures,  in  their  ordinary  condition,  symptoms  of  enjoyment.  Their  whole 
being  is  a  system  of  needs,  the  supplying  of  which  is  gratification,  and  of  facul- 
ties, the  exercise  of  which  is  pleasurable.  When  we  consult  our  own  sensations, 
we  find  that,  even  in  a  sense  of  a  healthy  performance  of  all  the  functions  of  the 
animal  economy,  God  has  furnished  us  with  an  innocent  and  very  high  enjoyment. 
The  mere  quiet  consciousness  of  a  healthy  play  of  the  mental  functions — a  mind 
at  ease  with  itself  and  all  around  it — is  in  like  manner  extremely  agreeable. 
This  negative  class  of  enjoyments,  it  may  be  remarked,  is  likely  to  be  even  more 
extensively  experienced  by  the  lower  animals  than  by  man,  at  least  in  the  propor- 
tion of  their  absolute  endowments,  as  their  mental  and  bodily  functions  are  much 
less  liable  to  derangement  than  ours.  To  find  the  world  constituted  on  this  prin- 
ciple is  only  what  in  reason  we  would  expect.  We  cannot  conceive  that  so  vast 
a  system  could  have  been  created  for  a  contrary  purpose.  No  averagely  consti- 
tuted human  being  would,  in  his  own  limited  sphere  of  action,  think  of  producing 
a  similar  system  upon  an  opposite  principle.  But  to  form  so  vast  a  range  of 
being,  and  to  make  being  everywhere  a  source  of  gratification,  is  conformable  to 
our  ideas  of  a  Creator  in  whom  we  are  constantly  discovering  traits  of  a  nature, 
of  which  our  own  is  but  a  faint  and  far  cast  shadow  at  the  best." 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION.  431 

The  author  confesses  the  difficulty  which  he  finds  in  reconciling 
this  view  with  the  many  miseries  which  we  see  all  sentient  beings, 
ourselves  included,  occasionally  suffering.  After  much  talk  about 
general  laws,  which  has  very  little  bearing  upon  the  difficulty 
which  he  is  seeking  to  relieve,  he  arrives  at  the  consolatory  con- 
clusion that  "the  individual  is  left  to  take  his  chance  amidst  the 
melee  of  the  various  laws  affecting  him.  If  he  be  found  inferiorly 
endowed,  or  ill  befalls  him,  there  was  at  least  no  partiality  against 
him.  The  system  has  the  fairness  of  a  lottery  in  which  every  one 
has  the  like  chance  of  drawing  a  prize."  We  are  thus  at  the  close 
fairly  landed  without  any  disguise,  "  in  the  sty  of  Epicurus." 

We  have  given  as  full  an  account  of  this  remarkable  work,  as 
our  limits  would  permit,  accompanied  by  such  special  criticisms  as 
we  wished  to  dispose  of  in  passing.  Our  first  general  remark 
upon  the  system  which  it  teaches  is,  that  no  one  can  be  at  a  loss 
in  determining  its  place.  It  is  the  Epicurean  system  defended  and 
embellished  by  modern  science.  This  system,  though  it  has  re- 
ceived the  name  of  Epicurus,  existed  before  his  day,  and  has  since 
continually  re-appeared  under  shghtly  differing  forms.  We  find 
it  taking  a  distinct  form  at  the  earliest  period  to  which  we  can 
trace  the  Greek  philosophy.  It  was  clearly  taught  by  Anaximan- 
der,  of  the  Ionian  school,  the  friend  and  disciple  of  Thales.  His 
great  difficulty,  like  that  of  the  mechanical  philosophers  of  all 
ages,  was  to  account  for  the  construction  of  organic  beings ;  but 
it  appears  to  us  that  he  was  quite  as  successful  in  overcoming  this 
difficulty,  as  our  author  has  been  with  all  the  appliances  of  modern 
geology  and  chemistry.  He  supposes  that  our  globe  was  originally 
composed  of  a  mixture  of  land  and  water,  and  assumed  its  present 
condition  from  the  action  of  the  sun,  evaporating  a  portion  of  the 
original  moisture.  So  long  as  the  earth  was  more  moist  than  at  pre- 
sent, the  sun's  action  was  greater ;  and  by  a  process  similar  to  what 
may  even  now  be  witnessed  on  a  smaller  scale  in  marshy  regions, 
it  produced  fermentous  bubbles  in  the  humidity,  which  being  out- 
wardly enclosed  by  filmy  bladders,  were  converted  within,  into 
living  creatures  by  the  solar  heat.  In  progress  of  time  these  living 
creatures  burst  their  shells,  and  came  forth  upon  the  dry  ground, 
where,  however,  they  lived  but  a  short  time.  These  first  animals 
were  rude  and  imperfect,  and  a  progressive  development  was 
necessary,  before  higher  species  could  be  produced.  Man,  he 
teaches,  did  not  come  at  once  in  his  perfect  shape  and  complete 
equipments  upon  the  earth.  He  was  originally  a  fish,  and  reached 
gradually  his  perfect  development.  The  genesis  of  organic  life 
was  supposed  to  be  effected  by  a  long  and  composite  series  of 
natural  processes ;  and  the  higher  forms  of  life  to  be  evolved  from 
the  lower.*  And  we  see  not  why  the  filmy  bladder  of  Anaxi- 
mander,  engendered  by  the  solar  heat,  is  not  as  good  and  philoso- 
phical a  starting  point  as  the  germinal  vesicle  of  the  author  of  the 

*  See  Ritter's  History  of  Philosophy,  vol.  i.,  p.  275. 


482  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

Vestiges  of  Creation,  produced  by  a  chemico-electrical  operation. 
The  same  system,  in  substance,  was  taught  by  Anaxagoras.  It 
was  indeed  the  prevaiHng  system  of  the  Ionian  school  of  philoso- 
phy. It  would  be  easy  to  trace  this  mechanical  theory  down 
through  history,  and  show  that  it  has  never  been  for  any  considera- 
ble period,  without  its  advocates.  It  is  one  of  the  possible  forms 
of  philosophy,  and  we  must  expect  to  find  it  re-appearing,  however 
often  refuted,  whenever  any  philosophical  movement  takes  place. 
In  more  modern  times  its  most  noted  defenders  have  been  Gas- 
sendi,  Hobbes,  the  French  school  of  Encyclopedists,  Darwin,  nnd 
Lamarck.  The  only  novelty  in  our  author's  exposition  of  it,  con- 
sists in  the  diligence  with  which  he  has  collected  and  arranged  the 
fragments  of  various  sciences  in  its  apparent  support. 

Some  difference  of  opinion  we  perceive  has  existed  respecting 
the  atheistic  character  of  this  work.  The  author  cannot,  we  think, 
with  propriety  be  branded  as  an  atheist.  He  recognises  the  exist- 
ence of  a  Deity.  He  speaks  of  a  personal  God,  distinct  from  the 
active  energy  implanted  in  matter.  He  sometimes  breaks  forth 
into  apparently  truthful  and  hearty  expressions  of  reverence 
towards  the  Creator.  It  is  indeed  true  that  in  his  system  we  can 
discern  no  ground  for  this  reverence.  We  cannot  see  why  we 
should  be  called  upon  to  adore  and  praise  a  Being  who  has  mani- 
fested no  moral  ends  in  our  creation  ;  who  has  made  us  for  gratifi- 
cation only,  and  left  us  so  insecure  of  that,  that  in  the  chance  mel^e 
we  fail  as  often  as  we  succeed  ;  and  to  whom  it  is  impossible  we 
can  be  bound  in  any  duty.  But  if  the  author,  even  while  expound- 
ing this  heartless,  bestial  system,  remains  so  far  under  the  influence 
of  better  things  that  his  moral  feelings  respond  to  their  influence, 
we  see  not  why  he  should  be  termed  an  atheist.  That  the  system 
which  he  teaches,  however,  is  an  atheistic  system,  there  can  be  no 
doubt.  It  has  been  so  recognised  in  all  ages  of  the  world.  It 
makes  the  senses  the  only  inlet  of  ideas,  and  induction  the  only 
instrument  for  reaching  the  truth.  From  this  beginning  atheism  is 
the  necessary  conclusion.  When  we  have  reasoned  back  from  the 
phenomena  presented  to  our  senses  until  we  have  arrived  at  the 
primary  nebulous  matter,  so  disposed  and  endowed  as  to  evolve 
Itself  into  all  the  forms  which  have  subsequently  proceeded  from 
it,  upon  what  principle  of  reasoning  are  we  warranted  in  inferring 
the  existence  of  anything  antecedent  to,  or  aside  from  this  primary 
matter  ?  If  we  are  acquainted  with  no  phenomena  but  those  of 
matter,  then  the  hypothesis  of  an  original  matter  endowed  with 
certain  forces,  the  nature  and  extent  of  which  we  learn  by  reason- 
ing backward  from  their  effects,  is  amply  sufficient  to  account  for 
the  universe.  As  Laplace  has  said,  "  we  do  not  need  the  hypo- 
thesis of  a  Deity."  An  original,  uncaused,  self-existent  matter, 
capable  of  becoming  all  that  we  have  seen  it  become,  and  of  taking 
on  in  the  future  such  forms  as  our  science  is  able  clearly  to  predict, 
this  is  the  ultimate  point  which  can  be  reached  by  the  philosophy 
of  induction,  generalizing  its  conclusions  from  the  phenomena  pre- 


I 


I 


VESTIGES    OP    CREATION.  433 

sented  to  the  senses.  Every  effect  must  have  a  cause,  or  rather 
every  phenomenon  must  be  preceded  by  an  antecedent,  adequate 
to  its  production ;  this  principle  will  carry  us  back  from  the  state 
of  the  universe  to-day  to  its  state  yesterday,  and  so  on  through  the 
teeming  days  of  the  interminable  geological  periods,  until  we  have 
arrived  at  the  simplest  condition  to  which  we  are  able  to  trace  the 
complicated  phenomena  by  which  we  are  surrounded.  Here  our 
progress  is  arrested.  Of  a  creation  strictly  so  called  we  have  had 
no  experience,  and  it  is  of  course  impossible  that  it  can  be  estab- 
lished by  any  empirical  principles  of  reasoning.  If  the  principle 
that  every  effect  must  nave  a  sufficient  cause  is  a  general  truth 
which  we  have  reached  by  induction,  nothing  can  be  more  illogical 
than  to  apply  this  principle  under  circumstances  entirely  different 
from  those  within  which  it  was  generalized.  It  was  gathered  from 
observation  upon  changes  in  existing  matter ;  what  application 
then  can  it  have  in  explanation  of  the  origin  of  matter  ?  It  is 
evident  that  the  materialist  cannot  get  beyond  the  reduction  of  the 
matter  with  which  he  starts  to  its  most  elementary  form,  except  by 
the  sacrifice  of  his  logic. 

The  author  of  this  work  does  indeed  admit  an  original  creation, 
but  every  intelligent  reader  will  feel  that  this  is  a  needless  and 
bungling  superfluity  in  his  theory.  If  matter,  during  the  indefinite 
period  which  has  elapsed  since  its  creation,  a  period  only  not  eter- 
nal, has  maintained  itself  in  being,  and  by  virtue  of  its  inherent 
properties  formed  itself  into  systems  of  worlds,  and  clothed  these 
worlds  with  vegetable  and  animal  life,  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in 
dispensing  with  the  idea  of  creation.  And  while  we  see  a  logical 
necessity  for  surrendering  this  idea,  we  cannot  perceive  any  moral 
or  other  advantage  to  be  gained  by  retaining  it.  Of  what  avail  is  it 
to  give  us  the  idea  of  a  creator,  if  He  who  created  does  not  govern 
us  f  The  Creator  in  this  system  created  necessarily,  and  all  things 
are  bound  together  in  the  necessary  chain  of  cause  and  effect. 
The  universe,  in  all  its  parts  and  beings,  in  all  its  processes  and 
results,  is  but  a  stupendous  machine,  whirled  about  by  its  own 
inherent  tendencies,  and  driving  on  to  we  know  not  what  end. 
In  what  relation  then  do  we  stand  to  the  Creator  ?  Shall  we  mag- 
nify Him  for  the  power  and  intelligence  displayed  in  His  work? 
But  power  and  intelligence  are  not  proper  objects  of  adoration 
except  when  directed  to  worthy  ends.  Shall  we  praise  Him  for 
his  wisdom  and  goodness  ?  But  of  these  we  can  find  no  sufficient 
traces.  We  cannot  pronounce  upon  His  wisdom,  while  in  utter 
ignorance  of  the  end  of  creation,  and  of  His  goodness  we  are  left 
equally  in  the  dark.  Abandoned  to  the  operation  of  general  laws, 
that  without  any  discernible  purpose  or  feeling  work  out  their 
results — left  to  take  our  chance  amid  the  prizes  and  blanks,  and 
worse  than  blanks,  distributed  by  a  stern  undiscriminuting  neces- 
sity— we  see  not  that  there  is  any  occasion  for  admiration,  reve- 
rence, or  love  towards  the  Creator.     To  love  Him  would  be,  as 

28 


434  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

Spinosa  says,  to  deny  His  nature.     To  pray  to  him  would  be  as 
idle  as  a  dog  baying  the  moon. 

It  is  instructive  to  observe  how  a  pure  materialism  and  a  pure 
idealism  meet  in  the  same  final  result,  though  reaching  it  by  such 
different  roads.  The  system  constructed  by  the  author  of  the 
Vestiges  of  Creation  is  destitute  of  all  moral  purposes  and  aims — 
man  is  only  a  self-conscious  wheel  in  the  machine — and  God  can 
be  nothing  higher  than  the  active  energy  which  works  through  all. 
In  like  manner  Spinosa,  starting  with  his  "  unica  substantia"  a  pure 
mental  abstraction,  an  ens  rationis,  constructs  a  system  in  which 
morality  is  identified  with  gratification,  and  God  with  the  principle 
that  permeates  and  acts  through  all  things. 

With  most  of  our  readers  we  trust  it  would  be  deemed  an  ample 
refutation  of  any  system  to  show  clearly  that  it  was  atheistic  in 
its  essential  character.  But  we  propose  to  make  a  further  exami- 
nation of  this  system  upon  its  merits  as  a  scientific  hypothesis. 
And  here  we  have  a  preliminary  word  to  say  upon  the  relations 
existing  between  science  and  revelation.  The  author  of  this  work 
affects  to  consider  the  common'  notions  entertained  of  the  agency 
of  the  Deity  in  the  creation,  as  grossly  anthropomorphic  and 
degrading.  That  He  should  put  forth  his  power  for  the  creation 
of  man,  that  He  should  be  summoned  to  interfere  whenever  a  new 
species  of  animalcules  or  zoophytes  was  to  be  called  into  being, 
this  is  to  take  a  very  mean  view  of  the  creative  power.  That  the 
august  Being,  who  called  all  worlds  into  existence,  was  "to  inter- 
fere personally  on  every  occasion  when  a  new  fish  or  reptile  was 
to  be  ushered  into  existence  on  one  of  these  worlds,  surely  this 
idea  is  too  ridiculous  to  be  entertained  for  a  moment."  It  shows 
a  singular  obliquity  of  vision  that  he  should  not  have  seen  that  the 
only  anthropomorphism  here  is  in  his  own  conception.  It  is  not 
unworthy  the  Divine  Being  to  have  created  even  the  minutest 
insects,  lor  he  supposes  Him  to  have  created  them  in  the  original 
act  of  will  by  which  He  created  matter.  But  it  is  derogatory  to 
suppose  that  He  created  them  succcessively,  by  separate  acts  of 
will !  Why  it  should  be  deemed  so,  we  cannot  conceive,  except 
by  transforming  the  idea  of  God  into  conceptions  framed  accord- 
ing to  the  standard  of  our  own  capacity  of  thought  and  action. 
From  the  limited  nature  of  our  faculties  we  are  incapable  of 
attending,  without  such  distraction  as  impairs  our  efficiency,  to 
more  than  one  object  at  a  time.  Hence  we  feel  when  we  see  a 
man  perpetually  occupied  with  trivial  aflfairs  that  he  is  acting  an 
unworthy  part,  because  we  know  that,  from  the  infirmity  of  his 
nature,  while  thus  employed  he  must  be  neglecting  weightier 
matters.  Shall  we  judge  the  Almighty  by  the  same  standard? 
Shall  we  conclude  that  while  he  is  numbering  the  hairs  of  our 
head,  he  is  failing  to  guide  Arcturus  and  his  sons— that  while  inter- 
fering to  create  a  reptile  or  a  fish,  he  is  suflTering  some  world  to 
rush  to  ruin,  or  some  angel  to  perish  from  neglect !  Reason 
teaches  us  to  infer  at  once  from  the  idea  of  God,  that  his  infinite 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

thought  comprehends  alike  the  great  and  the  small,  that  his  power 
and  his  goodness,  omnipresent  and  almighty,  act  with  undivided 
care  in  the  production  and  government  of  the  minute  as  well  as 
the  vast.  It  is  only  when  men  attempt  to  frame  conceptions  of 
the  Divine  Being  from  their  gropings  among  dead  matter,  when 
they  resolve  freedom  into  necessity,  will  into  law,  the  infinite  into 
the  indefinite,  and  the  absolute  into  the  conditioned,  that  they 
shrink  from  the  irreverence  of  supposing  that  God  notices  the  fall 
of  every  sparrow,  and  brings  forth  every  lily  of  the  field,  and 
numbers  every  hair  of  our  heads. 

The  author  of  this  work  is  evidently  fearful,  after  all  his  glosses, 
that  his  views  will  not  be  considered  altogether  consistent  with  the 
Scriptures  ;  for  he  adds, ''  ^  freely  own  that  I  do  not  think  it  right 
to  adduce  the  Mosaic  record,  either  in  objection  to,  or  in  support 
of  any  natural  hypothesis."  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  Scrip- 
tures were  not  given  to  teach  us  natural  philosophy  ;  but  it  is 
equally  plain  that  some  truths  of  natural  science  are  so  distinctly 
asserted,  and  so  interwoven  with  the  moral  system  therein 
revealed,  that  they  must  stand  or  fall  together.  Such  are  the  ori- 
ginal creation  of  matter  and  the  subsequent  creation  of  man,  by 
the  fiat  of  the  divine  will.  Such,  too,  we  regard  ihe  descent  of  all 
mankind  from  one  original  pair,  though  the  author  says  "  this  is  an 
open  question."  The  Scriptures  not  only  plainly  assert  this  as  a 
historical  fact,  but  it  is  so  connected  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
depravity  and  redemption  of  the  race,  that  if  it  should  be  disproved 
it  would  discredit  the  pretended  revelation  which  teaches  it.  As 
a  general  proposition,  it  may  be  granted  that  the  Bible  teaches  us 
no  physical  truth  except  in  subserving  to  some  moral  end,  but 
some  such  truths  it  does  teach  us,  and  these  we  are  satisfied  can 
never  be  set  aside  by  the  ultimate  results  of  any  true  science. 

In  passing  the  chief  points  of  the  Vestiges  of  Creation  under 
review,  we  are  led  in  the  first  place  to  examine  the  foundations  of 
the  nebular  hypothesis.  This  hypothesis,  the  author  says,  "  is  sup- 
ported by  so  many  ascertained  features  of  the  celestial  scenery, 
and  by  so  many  calculations  of  exact  science,  that  it  is  impossible 
for  a  candid  mind  to  refrain  from  giving  it  a  cordial  reception,  if 
not  to  repose  full  reliance  upon  it."  This  he  says,  as  we  have 
already  shown,  without  having  mastered  this  hypothesis  in  its 
statements  or  in  its  principles,  and  while  giving  ample  evidence  of 
his  utter  incompetency  to  decide  upon  what  is  necessary  to  legiti- 
mate a  scientific  hypothesis.  Hypotheses,  as  distinguished  from 
theories,  may  very  fitly  be  made  by  the  natural  philosopher  to 
assist  and  guide  him  in  his  investigations.  Indeed  they  are  essen- 
tial lo  the  successful  prosecution  of  scientific  research.  Without 
an  hypothesis,  by  which  the  philosopher  supposes  some  explanation 
of  an  observed  fact  by  which  it  may  be  related  to  other  facts,  he 
could  only  make  his  experiments  at  hazard,  instead  of  putting  to 
nature  ihe  *^  pT^dens  questio"  o(  Bacon.  If  his  experiments  are 
not  made  at  random,  it  must  be  for  the  purpose  of  testing  some- 


436  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

thing  which  he  has  beforehand  supposed,  that  is,  of  deternnining  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  some  hypothesis  which  he  has  framed.     The 
more  general  this  hypothesis  becomes,  that  is,  the  greater  number 
of  dissimilar  but  analogous  facts  it  explains,  the  more  important  it 
becomes  as  a  guide  to  further  experiment  and  reasoning.     But  a 
sound  philosopher  will  always  preserve  the  just  boundary  between 
hypothesis  and  theory.     He  will   never  confound  a  supposition 
with  a  real  truth,  a  suffiction  with  a  substance.     He  will  use  his 
hypothesis  only  as  a  suggestive  contrivance,  which   classifying 
together  certain  facts,  in  an  artificial  relation,  puts  him  upon  the 
search  after  others  which  may  confirm  or  modify  the  supposition 
already  made.     It  was  only  in  this  light  that  the  nebular  hypothe- 
sis was  proposed  by  Laplace,  and   subsequent   observation  has 
tended  to  diminish  instead  of  increasing  the  evidence  in  its  favour. 
"  The  features  of  celestial  scenery,"  which  suggested  this  hypothe- 
sis, were  the  appearances  presented  by  the  different  nebulae  which 
are  found  distributed  through  celestial  space.     The  powerful  tele- 
scope of  the  elder  Herschel  first  disclosed  the  fact  that  these  remark- 
able objects,  one  or  two  of  which  are  visible  to  the  naked  eye,  existed 
in  immense  numbers,  and  presented  very  diflferent  appearances. 
Some  of  them  appear  like  luminous  clouds,  irregular  in  shape,  and 
with  spots  of  varying  degrees  of  brightness.     Others  are  spherical 
or  elliptic  in  form,  and  increase  in  brightness  towards  a  central 
point.     Sir  William  Herschel  suggested  that  these  brighter  spots 
were  centres  of  condensation  around  which  the  nebulous  matter 
was  slowly  collecting,  and  this  suggestion  was  the  foundation  of 
Laplace's  hypothesis.     Assuming  the  existence  of  a  nebulous  mass 
with  a  condensation  going  on  towards  the  centre,  and  a  rotation 
round  an  axis,  he   showed  that  such  a  condition  of  things  might 
exist  as  would  lead  to  the  separation  of  successive  rings,  revolving 
round  the  central  mass ;  which  rings  might  in  turn  break  up  and 
form  into  planets,  with  satellites,  generated  in  like  manner,  revolv- 
ing 'around  them.     This  hypothesis  pretends  to  nothing  higher 
than  to  show  the  physical  possibility  of  such  a  construction  of  our 
solar  system.     It  is  a  brilliant  imagination  ;    and  no  man  who 
understands  the  difficulties  of  the  problem,  of  which  this  is  a  con- 
jectural solution,  would  venture  to  give  it  at  present  any  more 
substantial  character. 

It  is  said  that  the  first  fruits  of  discovery  with  the  great  telescope 
of  Lord  Rosse  have  been  the  resolution  of  many  of  the  hitherto 
unresolvable  nebulae  into  distinct  stars.  This,  if  true,  weakens 
and  goes  far  to  destroy  the  chief  evidence  in  favour  of  the 
hypothesis.  It  was  conjectured  from  the  diflferent  appearances 
which  these  objects  presented  that  they  were  composed  of  nebu- 
lous matter  existing  in  different  states  of  condensation,  and  under- 
going changes  which  are  but  a  rehearsal  of  what  once  occurred 
in  our  system.  If  it  turns  out  that  these  appearances  were 
fallacious,  and  that  the  nebulae  which  were  supposed  to  exhibit  the 
successive  stages  of  condensation  are  composed  of  distinct  bodies 


I 


A 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION.  437 

already  formed,  the  ground  for  this  conjecture  is  greatly  weak- 
ened. 

But  M.  Comte  claims  to  have  given  a  mathematical  verification 
of  the  nebular  hypothesis,  and  this  claim  is  fully  endorsed  by 
our  author.  M.  Comte  is  a  bold  and  brilliant  writer.  Many  of 
his  generalizations  show  the  divination  of  genius  ;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  under  the  show  of  great  profundity,  he  is  not  seldom 
exceedingly  shallow  and  superficial.  In  this  matter,  as  in  some 
others  in  his  '' Philosophie  Positive"  he  has  leaped  to  his  con- 
clusion. He  has  done  nothing  more  by  his  parade  of  mathe- 
matical analysis  than  to  prove,  under  another  form,  the  well- 
known  theorem,  that  a  body  revolving  around  another,  in  obedi- 
ence to  a  central  force,  is  aflfected  by  the  mass  but  not  by  the 
magnitude  of  the  central  body.  Kepler's  law  he  has  not  proved, 
nor  is  it  possible  that  he  should,  without  making  assumptions  as  to 
the  law  of  density  of  a  nebulous  mass,  in  making  which  he  could 
have  no  other  guide  than  the  fact  to  be  explained  by  it ;  that  is,  he 
must  reason  from  the  facts  to  the  conditions  necessary  to  account  for 
them,  and  then  assuming  these  conditions  offer  them  in  explana- 
tion of  the  facts.  M.  Comte  has  not  made  the  first  step  towards  a 
mathematical  confirmation  of  the  nebular  hypothesis ;  nor  do  we 
believe  that  the  problem  can  ever  be  brought  within  the  compass 
of  mathematical  analysis.  It  never  can  become  a  theory  until  we 
are  in  a  condition  to  explain  why  so  many  and  no  more  planets 
were  thrown  off, — why  they  were  separated  at  the  precise  dis- 
tances at  which  we  find  them  from  the  sun — why  the  ring  which 
separated  between  Mars  and  Jupiter  formed  itself  into  four  planets 
instead  of  one — why  Saturn's  ring  did  not  break  up  and  form  a 
satellite — why  some  of  the  planets  have  satellites  and  others  not — 
and  why  some  of  these  satellites  move  from  east  to  west  in  orbits 
exceedingly  oblique.  And  if  all  this  were  done,  so  as  to  establish 
it  as  a  scientific  theory,  it  would  by  no  means  follow  that  it  gave 
us  the  true  history  of  creation.  Unless  we  can  bring  existing 
nebulae  sufficiently  near  to  obtain  our  data  from  them,  we  can 
only  arrive  at  the  necessary  data  by  suppositions  derived  from  the 
phenomena  to  be  accounted  for.  The  primitive  constitution  of 
the  nebulous  mass  to  which  we  are  thus  led  can  never  be  aught 
else  than  an  abstraction.  If  we  could,  by  postulating  a  nebulous 
mass  of  defined  extent,  density,  and  velocity  of  rotation  on  its  axis, 
show  that  the  present  solar  system  is  the  necessary  result,  it  would 
assuredly  be  the  most  splendid  triumph  which  science  has  yet 
achieved.  But  it  would  by  no  means  prove  that  the  system  had 
actually  been  constructed  after  this  fashion.  It  would  be  a  true 
theory,  but  whether  it  would  be  truth  of  fact  or  not  is  an  entirely 
distinct  question.  The  nebular  hypothesis,  which  our  author 
makes  his  point  of  departure,  is  as  yet  entitled  to  no  higher  consi- 
deration than  a  conjecture  ;  and  should  it  in  the  progress  of  science 
be  established,  which  seems  to  us  impossible,  it  will  be  only  an 


49!^  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

analytical  explanation  of  how  the  universe  might  have  been  con- 
structed. 

It  will  be  found  upon  a  careful  examination  of  the  argument 
drawn  from  geology,  that  our  author  has  failed  as  egregiously  in 
translating  the  records  of  the  earth,  as  in  deciphering  the  truths 
written  upon  the  heavens.  We  have  no  intention  of  following  him 
through  this  part  of  his  argument.  Whatever  else  may  be  proved 
by  geological  facts,  it  is  certain  that  when  placed  in  their  proper 
order  they  lend  no  aid  to  the  two  points  which  he  is  most  anxious  to 
establish,  the  origination  of  life,  by  natural  laws,  from  inorganic 
matter,  and  the  transmutation  of  one  species  into  another.  To 
seek  for  evidence  of  these  truths  in  the  fossil  remains  of  an  extinct 
world,  while  there  is  nothing  to  warrant  them  in  the  living  pro- 
cesses which  are  now  going  on,  is  another  illustration  of  the  sin- 
gular tendency  of  this  author  to  interpret  the  clear  by  the  obscure. 
The  laws  of  life  surely  ought  to  be  sought  among  the  living,  not 
the  dead.  If  it  can  be  shown  that  there  is  no  ground,  in  any  of 
the  living  operations  of  the  present  economy,  for  supposing  that 
life  is  ever  produced  by  the  agency  of  mechanical  or  chemical 
laws  from  inorganic  matter,  or  that  one  form  of  life  ever  begets 
other  than  its  like,  we  may  rest  satisfied  that  these  conclusions  will 
never  be  set  aside  by  any  reasoning  founded  upon  the  exuviae  of 
extinct  generations. 

We  proceed,  then,  to  inquire  into  the  reasons  which  the  author 
has  given  us  for  believing  that  living  organisms  may  be  constructed 
from  inorganic  materials  by  the  inherent  properties  of  matter. 
The  resemblances  given  by  crystallization  and  the  electrical  brush 
to  some  forms  of  vegetable  life  we  have  already  dismissed  as 
puerile  conceits  in  the  discussion  of  such  a  subject.  His  next 
argument  is  that  urea  and  alantoin  have  been  made  in  the  labora- 
tory. To  discern  the  bearing  of  this  upon  the  question  in  debate, 
it  will  be  necessary  to  consider  with  more  precision  than  he  has 
done  what  are  the  phenomena  comprised  in  organization.  In  the 
lowest  form  of  life  we  find  two  perfectly  distinct  operations,  the 
production  of  an  organic  material,  and  the  construction  of  the  vital 
organs  out  of  this  material.  The  earliest  observation  which  can 
be  made  of  the  germs  of  plants  or  of  animals,  presents  a  small 
globule  or  disc  of  albuminous  matter,  in  which  we  can  discover 
as  yet  no  forms  or  attributes  of  the  future  being.  The  organs 
through  which  life  is  to  be  manifested  and  maintained  have  as  yet 
no  existence.  Haller,  and  others  after  him,  supposed  that  all  the 
parts  of  the  plant  or  animal  existed  already  in  miniature  in  its  seed 
or  ovum  ;  but  this  is  an  assumption  of  a  material  existence  agamst 
the  evidence  of  the  senses,  the  only  authorized  judges,  and  for 
which  there  is  no  reason  except  the  metaphysical  necessity  created 
by  a  particular  hypothesis  of  life.  The  most  powerful  microscopes 
have  failed  to  detect  in  diflferent  seeds  any  such  diflference  of  struc- 
ture as  may  furnish  ground  for  a  prediction  of  the  genus  or  spe- 
cies which  will  be  developed  from  it.     This  fact  alone  is  sufficient 


I 


li 


VESTIGES    OP   CREATION.  439 

to  destroy  the  theory  that  life  is  only  the  harmonious  co-operation 
of  the  different  organs  of  the  living  body,  and  that  death  is  the 
result  of  their  discordant  action.  There  is  in  a  living  structure  a 
mutual  dependency  of  parts  and  functions,  any  serious  interrup- 
tion of  which  is  the  occasion  of  death.  But  to  make  life  consist 
in  this  harmony  is  to  put  the  effect  for  the  cause.  The  harmonious 
play  of  the  organs  is  itself  the  result  of  some  principle  vv^hich  per- 
vades and  regulates  the  whole  machine,  and  which  must  have  pre- 
ceded the  machine,  inasmuch  as  its  agency  is  concerned  in  the 
construction  and  collocation  of  its  different  parts. 

In  tracing  the  progress  of  vegetable  organization,  we  find,  when 
the  requisite  physical  conditions  of  heat,  moisture,  and  oxygen,  are 
supplied,  that  an  action  commences,  the  first  observable  effect  of 
which  is  the  appearance,  in  the  fluid  of  the  seed,  of  minute  gra- 
nules, among  which  are  soon  seen  some  of  larger  size  and  more 
sharply  defined  than  the  others.  These  increase  in  size  apparently 
from  the  coagulation  of  the  smaller  ones  around  them.  From 
these  granules  the  cells  are  formed  ;  and  the  different  tissues  which 
make  up  the  plant  are  all  developed  from  the  cells  thus  con- 
structed. The  nuclei  formed  by  the  aggregation  of  the  minute 
granules,  and  the  cells  into  which  these  are  transformed,  are  each 
of  them  "  a  living  organism,  analogous  in  its  vital  attributes  to  the 
simplest  forms  of  vegetables  and  animals.  It  imbibes  or  is  pene- 
trated by  the  surrounding  plasma  (organizable  matter)  that  serves 
for  its  nutriment,  acts  on,  modifies,  and  metamorphoses  it,  appro- 
priates what  is  fitted  to  its  own  particular  nature,  and  rejects  what 
is  not  adapted  to  its  nature  or  function  as  excrementitious."*  The 
construction  of  all  the  elementary  tissues  of  which  both  vegetable 
and  animal  bodies  are  composed  is  by  development  from  cells.  In 
some  pre-existing  organizable  material,  which  may  be  situated 
either  within  or  without  a  cell  already  formed,  new  cells  are  deve- 
loped, and  these  cells,  by  various  changes  and  transformations,  are 
converted  into  the  elementary  tissues. 

Here  are  obviously  two  processes,  going  on  contemporaneously, 
which  ought  to  be  distinctly  observed.  The  first  is  the  formation 
of  the  material  from  which  the  different  organs  are  made,  the  other 
the  disposition  of  this  material,  the  shape  and  collocation  given  to 
it  so  as  to  fit  it  to  play  its  part  in  the  living  structure.  The  orga- 
nizable material  of  which  the  vegetable  tissues  are  composed  is 
gum,  produced  directly  by  a  formative  process,  or  through  the 
intermediate  state  of  starchy  from  inorganic  elements.  The 
proximate  principles  of  animal  tissue  are  fibrin,  albumen, 
gelatin,  ozmazome,  and  fatty  matter.  Each  particle  of  the  elemen- 
tary organ  attracts  to  it  particles  which  it  assimilates  to  its  own 
substance,  and  endows  with  its  own  vital  properties.  While  this 
process  of  nutrition  is  going  on,  the  organ,  which  is  growing  up, 
receives  at  the  same  time  its  shape  and  proportions.     The  princi- 

*  Introductory  Lecture,  by  Samuel  Jackson,  M.  D.    Philadelphia,  1844. 


440  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

pie  which  determines  each  particular  organ  and  builds  up  the 
entire  structure,  with  each  part  complete  in  itself  and  harmoniously 
adapted  to  the  whole,  may  and  ought  to  be  clearly  distinguished 
from  the  assimilating  power  by  which  the  organic  material  is 
elaborated.  It  may  admit  of  question  whether  these  are  different 
methods  of  operation  of  the  same  fundamental  law,  or  whether 
they  must  be  traced  to  distinct  causes,  but  they  are  obviously  very- 
different  phenomena,  and  any  theory,  physiological  or  metaphysi- 
cal, which  does  not  separate  between  them,  must  involve  itself  in 
inextricable  confusion. 

In  the  process  of  assimilation  a  striking  change  is  wrought  in 
the  properties  of  matter.  The  vegetable,  seizing  upon  carbon, 
hydrogen,  oxygen  and  nitrogen,  converts  them  into  its  own  tissues, 
which  again  furnish  the  proximate  principles  of  animal  organiza- 
tion. These  are  in  all  cases  at  least  ternary  compounds  of  chemi- 
cal elements  ;  and,  what  is  singular,  the  most  important  of  them, 
fibrin  and  albumen,  when  analysed  in  the  laboratory,  are  found  to 
consist  of  precisely  the  same  organic  elements,  combined  in  the 
same  proportion.  The  materials  thus  furnished,  when  taken  up  by 
the  particular  organs  of  the  body,  are  not  only  assimilated  to  them, 
but  receive  the  like  power  of  assimilating  other  particles.  This 
process  of  transmutation  bears  a  resemblance  to  those  which  are 
effected  in  the  laboratory.  The  changes  wrought  in  the  organic 
material  furnished,  may  be  due  to  nothing  more  than  modifications 
made  in  the  arrangement  of  its  ultimate  particles.  We  are  not 
disposed,  therefore,  to  deny  the  possibility  that  fibrin  or  albumen 
may  be  some  day  manufactured  by  the  chemist,  though  we  fear 
not,  for  reasons  which  we  have  not  space  now  to  give,  to  hazard 
the  prediction  that  they  will  for  ever  elude  his  grasp.  Urea  and 
alantoin,  it  is  said,  have  been  thus  made,  and  our  author  founds 
upon  this  a  confident  augury  that  all  the  proximate  principles  of 
organization  will  ultimately  be  compounded  at  will  in  like  manner. 
His  theory  then  quietly  proceeds  as  if  this  work  had  already  been 
accomplished.  The  absurdity  of  this  is  apparent,  when  it  is 
remembered  that  urea  and  alantoin,  though  they  are  products  of 
living  organisms,  make  no  part  of  the  material  which  enters  into 
any  organic  structure  ;  they  are  elaborated  in  the  production  of 
other  things  and  thrown  off"  as  excrementitious.  Let  it  be  marked, 
too,  that  this  refuse  of  the  organic  laboratory  has  been  imitated 
only  by  using  other  animal  products  in  its  manufacture;  and  it  will 
be  seen  how  much  ground  the  author  has  for  his  augury  that 
albumen,  which,  in  his  utter  and  shameful  ignorance,  he  declares 
to  be  "  a  perfectly  co-ordinate  compound*'  with  urea  and  alantoin, 
may  any  day  be  produced  in  the  laboratory. 

But  let  us  suppose  that  the  hourly  expectation  which  our  author 
encourages  us  to  cherish  has  been  fulfilled,  and  that  "  some  French 
physiologist  has  given  out"  that  the  art  has  been  reached  of  com- 
pounding albumen  and  fibrin,  and  all  other  organic  elements. 
What  progress  shall  we  even  then  have  made  towards  the  organi- 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION.  441 

zation  of  life  ?  Precisely  the  same  progress  that  was  made 
towards  the  construction  of  the  Parthenon  when  the  marble  was 
lying  in  shapeless  masses,  out  of  which  the  shapely  temple  was  to 
be  built.  The  power  is  yet  to  be  evoked  that  shall  give  form  to 
these  materials,  and  build'  them  up  into  a  Structure  in  which  each 
part  shall  be  fitly  fashioned  and  placed  for  the  discharge  of  its 
functions  in  its  ministry  to  the  design  of  the  whole.  From  matter 
prepared  for  that  purpose,  a  cunningly  devised  mechanism  is  to  be 
framed,  giving  evidence  of  the  highest  skill  in  the  precise  adjust- 
ment of  its  complicated  members,  and  their  harmonious  co-opera- 
tion to  the  production  of  a  common  end.  Can  we  suppose  that  the 
power  through  which  this  is  wrought  is  a  property  of  matter  ! 
We  confess  that  nothing  seems  to  us  more  incredible  and  absurd, 
thougk  this  opinion  we  know  has  been  maintained  by  many  eminent 
physiologists. 

It  should  be  observed,  however,  that  the  question  now  under  dis- 
cussion does  not  lie  within  the  proper  province  of  the  physiologist. 
It  is  his  vocation  to  observe  the  phenomena  of  organization,  and 
trace  the  relations  subsisting  between  them.  His  science  deals  only 
with  phenomena,  and  the  laws  at  which  he  arrives  are,  in  no 
proper  sense  of  the  term,  causes  of  the  effects  ascribed  to  them. 
They  are  but  generalizations  of  particular  facts.  When  the  further 
inquiry  is  made,  after  the  substance  which  underlies  the  phe- 
nomena, the  law-giver  who  has  established  the  law,  and  the  agent 
by  whom  it  is  executed,  the  physiologist  has  no  advantage  over 
other  men.  The  course  of  his  studies  may  rather  have  tended  to 
make  him  an  unsafe  reasoner  upon  these  higher  questions.  The 
habit  which  he  has  acquired  of  explaining  one  material  phenome- 
non by  a  reference  to  some  other  of  a  like  kind,  disposes  him  to 
rest  satisfied  with  the  complete  analysis  of  matter,  and  to  feel 
when  he  has  succeeded  in  determining  the  law  under  which  any 
given  fact  falls  as  if  he  had  arrived  at  its  efficient  cause.  Intent 
upon  his  own  science,  in  which  he  traces  the  ever-shifting  forms 
and  states  of  matter,  until  he  has  succeeded  in  reducing  them  to 
order,  by  classifying  them  under  one  or  more  general  abstract 
terms,  he  pronounces  the  word  law^  and  declares  that  herein  we 
have  arrived  at  the  limit  of  human  intelligence.  It  is  not  per- 
mitted to  man  to  know  more ;  all  beyond  is  conjecture  and  doubt. 
Physiologists  are  apt,  in  the  bigotry  produced  by  exclusive  devo- 
tion to  a  single  science,  to  sneer  at  the  mazy  dreams  of  meta- 
physical speculation,  forgetful  that  the  moment  they  undertake  to 
pronounce  what  is,  as  distinguished  from  what  appears,  Xhay  are 
themselves  trespassing  upon  the  department  of  metaphysics.  We 
would  not  debar  the  physiologists  from  the  discussion  of  these 
questions,  but  we  would  have  them  understand  that  when  they 
take  them  in  hand  they  have  laid  aside  the  scalpel  and  the  micro- 
scope, and  stand  only  upon  equal  terms  with  other  metaphysical 
reasoners.  The  "Metaphysic"  of  Bacon,  which  is  as  veritable  a 
science  as  any  other,  and  the  true  and  proper  end  of  all  the  rest, 


442  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

can  be  reached  by  no  man  while  he  confines  himself  within  his 
own  particular  department.  We  return  therefore  to  the  discus- 
sion of  this  point,  unawed  by  the  prestige  of  any  physiological 
authority  that  may  be  arrayed  against  us. 

In  every  organized  being  we  have,  in  tlie  entire  structure,  and 
in  each  member  of  it,  a  peculiar  form  evolved  and  maintained, 
at  the  same  time  that  the  material  which  enters  into  its  composi- 
tion is  elaborated.  To  suppose  that  this  peculiar  material,  neces- 
sary for  the  manifestation  of  life,  and  the  wondrous  shapes  into 
which  it  is  fashioned,  each  one  instinct  with  intelligence  and 
design,  are  the  spontaneous  products  of  matter,  or  the  results  of 
blind  and  unintelligent  forces,  seems  to  us  in  plain  contradiction 
to  every  sound  principle  of  reasoning.  Wherever  we  find  form, 
we  have  the  evidence  of  a  pre-existent  idea  of  which  it  is  the 
realization.  To  make  matter  the  cause  of  form  is  as  absurd  as  to 
make  it  the  cause  of  its  own  existence.  Matter  as  it  exists  in 
amorphous  masses,  or  under  the  geometrical  forms,  given  to  us 
in  inorganic  nature,  might  be  supposed  the  result  of  a  concourse 
of  atoms  impelled  by  necessary  laws.  A  blind  unreasoning 
power  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  account  for  it.  But  the  mind  at 
once  perceives  when  organic  forms  are  presented  that  these  in- 
volve a  previous  intellectual  conception.  It  is  impossible  for  any 
mind  that  has  not  been  bewildered  by  sophistry,  to  contemplate  a 
plan  thoughtfully,  without  receiving  the  impression  of  a  pre- 
existing idea,  the  thought  that  when  yet  but  begun  in  the  germ  it 
had  a  perfect  existence  somewhere,  and  that  the  elements  of 
which  it  is  composed,  and  the  mechanical  agencies  employed  in 
its  construction,  are  but  the  instruments  of  a  power  which  is 
itself  the  agent  of  and  dependent  on  the  organic  whole.  The 
assimilating,  plastic  power  which  transmutes  the  inorganic  into 
organic  matter,  cannot  itself  be  the  cause  of  the  organism,  for  it 
is  one  of  its  attributes.  The  dynamic  forces,  the  chemical  agen- 
cies of  nature,  so  far  from  producing  life  and  organization,  cannot 
operate  to  effect  organism  without  the  presence  of  life,  or  to 
destroy  it  except  in  its  absence.  We  are  driven  thus  to  the  con- 
clusion that  there  is  a  specific  principle  of  organization  of  which 
the  vital  or  assimilative  agency  is  the  actuating  power.  Whether 
this  principle  is  the  creative  idea  of  Plato,  the  constitutive  form 
of  Aristotle,  the  plastic  nature  of  Cud  worth,  the  anima  of  Stahl, 
the  nisus  formativus  of  Blumenbach,  or  the  vital  force  of  some 
modern  physiologists,  it  is  not  needful  that  we  pause  to  inquire. 
We  are  desirous  not  to  explain  the  best  method  of  conceiving  it, 
but  to  make  manifest  the  necessity  of  conceiving  it  under  some 
form. 

Every  theory  which  refers  the  phenomena  of  organization  to 
the  properties  of  matter  must  leave  the  principal  fundamental  facts 
unexplained.  If  we  admit  that  the  vital  processes  are  carried  on 
by  a  species  of  chemistry,  we  still  need  the  chemist.  If  electricity, 
as  our  author  contends,  is  identical  with  the  nervous  power,  we 


Ii 


VESTIGES    or    CREATION.  443 

Still  need  the  electrician  who,  instead  of  leaving  this  fluid  to  range 
and  burst  in  lawless  disorder,  directs  it  with  evident  purpose 
and  infallible  precision  to  the  accomplishnnent  of  the  ends  of  the 
animal  economy.  What  reason  then  have  we  for  supposing  that 
the  attractions  and  repulsions  of  inorganic  nature,  however  directed 
by  human  skill,  can  ever  generate  the  organizing  power  which  is 
necessary  to  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  a  living  struc- 
ture ?  Every  d  priori  presumption  is  against  it,  and  all  experience 
contradicts  it.  We  cannot  indeed  prove  the  abstract  impossibility 
of  such  a  genesis  of  life.  The  mode  in  which  the  organic  princi- 
ple has  been  conditioned  for  its  manifestation  in  matter  we  can 
learn  only  from  observation.  But  observation  conducts  us  to  the 
conclusion,  that  the  necessary  condition  of  its  manifestation  is  the 
existence  of  a  germ,  which  is  the  product  of  a  previous  organism  ; 
and  that  in  the  absence  of  this  the  production  of  a  living  being, 
either  fully  developed  or  in  embryo,  is  as  strictly  a  creative  act 
as  the  calling  new  matter  into  existence.  We  cannot  prove  a 
priori  the  impossibility  of  generating  matter  by  transmitting  an 
electrical  current  through  a  vacuum,  or  by  operating  on  existing 
matter,  so  that  it  should  increase  by  the  aggregation  of  new  par- 
ticles. We  cannot  prove  this  impossibility,  because  we  know  not, 
prior  to  experience,  how  the  will  of  the  Creator,  the  true  efficient 
cause,  has  conditioned  the  introduction  of  new  matter  into  the  uni- 
verse. But  all  expereince  has  proved  that,  abstraction  being  made 
of  the  creative  cause,  fi?e  ni/iiVo  nihil  Jit,  So  with  equal  conclu- 
siveness experience  has  proved  that  the  organic  power  can  never 
be  called  into  action  except  by  means  of  a  germ  which  has  been 
elaborated  by  an  organized  being. 

To  oppose  this  induction,  which  is  sustained  by  instances  with- 
out number,  what  has  our  author  to  produce  ?  Mr.  Crosse's 
experiment  upon  the  manufacture  of  animalcules,  already  suffi- 
ciently noticed;  the  report  given  out,  some  years  ago,  by  some 
French  physiologist,  that  globules  might  be  produced  in  albumen 
by  electricity,  and  if  albumen  could  be  made  artificially,  and  if 
these  globules  were  identical  with  the  reproductive  cells  of  physio- 
logy, the  process  would  be  complete  ;  and  lastly,  a  few  obscure 
facts  in  vegetable  and  animal  economy.  These  facts  demand  a 
brief  notice.  In  the  first  place  we  are  told  that  white  clover,  under 
certain  circumstances,  will  spring  up  in  soils  where  we  have  every 
reason,  except  the  growth  of  the  clover  itself,  to  suppose  that  there 
were  no  seeds  ;  and  that  mushrooms  may  be  made  to  spring  up  in 
an  artificial  compost  in  which  no  seeds  have  been  sown.  In  both  these 
cases  the  presumption  certainly  is  that  the  seeds,  though  unsown 
and  undiscovered,  were  present.  It  is  known  that  seeds  may  remain 
for  ages  without  losing  their  vitality — some  have  come  down  to 
us  from  the  days  of  the  Pharaohs — and  as  in  all  other  cases  clover 
and  mushrooms  spring  from  seeds,  and  this  is  seen  to  be  the  law 
of  vegetable  creation,  we  are  led  to  infer  that  in  these  cases  also 
the  lime  and  the  prepared  compost  do  but  supply  the  favouring 


444  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 


circumstances  to  stimulate  to  germination  seeds  already  existing  in 
the  soil- 

His  next  facts  in  favour  of  equivocal  generation  are  founded  on 
observations  upon  the  production  of  the  vegetation  called  mouldy 
and  the  infusory  animalcules.  Into  the  details  of  these  observa- 
tions we  cannot  enter.  They  are  to  us  entirely  unsatisfactory. 
The  infusoria  or  mould  may  have  arisen  from  dried  animalcules 
or  their  germs,  borne  in  the  air  ;  the  water  may  have  contained  the 
ova,  which  have  afterwards  multiplied  rapidly;  they  may  have  found 
their  way  through  some  of  the  gases  used  in  the  experiment.  The 
accuracy  necessary  to  exclude  such  minute  bodies  is  scarcely 
possible.  That  in  all  these  cases  the  generation  was  by  means  of 
the  pre-existing  germs  is  rendered  almost  certain  by  Ehrenbrg's 
experiments.  He  succeeded  in  detecting  the  real  germs  of  the 
vegetable  mould,  and  thus  rendered  it  probable  that,  as  this  sub- 
stance, like  all  other  vegetable  productions,  grew  from  a  germ,  in 
the  cases  of  its  unexpected  appearance,  it  also  arose  from  germs, 
that  had  been  diffused  through  the  air  or  water,  having  found  the 
situation  requisite  for  their  germination.  He  succeeded  too  in 
showing  that  the  smallest  animalcules,  only  the  two  thousandth  of 
a  line  in  diameter,  possessed  a  complicated  stomach,  and  organs  of 
motion  in  the  form  of  cilia,  and  thus  overthrew  one  great  argument 
in  favour  of  their  spontaneous  origin.  In  others  he  detected  the 
ova,  and  the  propagation  by  means  of  ova.  He  found  also  that  no 
animalcules  were  produced,  when  in  addition  to  other  precaution- 
ary measures,  the  air  used  in  the  experiment  was  passed  through 
sulphuric  acid.  The  result  of  his  experiments,  conducted  with  a 
view  of  testing  the  validity  of  those  upon  which  the  exploded  doc- 
trine of  equivocal  generation  was  revived,  was  decidedly  at  every 
point  in  favour  of  the  universal  law,  omne  vivum  ex  ovo. 

The  only  other  class  of  facts  that  calls  for  notice  is  the  existence 
of  entozoa,  or  internal  parasitical  animals.  The  ova  of  these 
animals,  it  is  said,  are  too  large  to  be  conveyed  in  the  air,  or  to  be 
absorbed  by  vessels  from  the  food  and  carried  to  their  nidus  in  the 
viscera.  Such  worms  have  even  been  found  in  the  viscera  of 
embryos.  The  existence  of  these  parasitic  worms  is,  we  admit, 
exceedingly  obscure  and  difficult  of  explanation.*  In  many  cases 
we  can  trace  the  process  by  which  the  ova  are  introduced,  and  in 
those  where  we  cannot,  the  hypothesis  of  their  origin  ought  to  be 
in  analogy  with  all  else  that  we  know  of  the  production  of  life. 

We  have  on  the  one  side  an  induction  comprising  innumerable 
instances,  deciding  that  the  fixed  law  of  organic  production  is 
"  omne  vivum  ex  ovo  ;  "  we  have  on  the  other  side  a  few  obscure 
facts,  in  some  of  which  it  is  difficult  to  trace  the  prevalence  of  this 
law,  but  not  one  of  them  of  such  a  nature  as  necessarily  to  exclude 

•  "  Entozoa  have  been  found  in  embryos,  and  in  the  eggs  of  birds  :  so  also  have  pins 
and  small  pieces  of  flint."  See  Dr.  Clark's  paper,  in  the  Reports  of  the  British 
Association,  vol.  iii.,  p.  113. 


I 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION.  445 

it.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  a  sound  philosophy  must  lead 
us  here  to  pronounce  in  favour  of  the  law. 

The  other  corner-stone  of  our  author's  theory,  the  transmutation 
of  species,  need  not  detain  us  long.  The  chief  fact  which  he 
brings  forward  in  support  of  the  supposed  transmutation,  is  the 
passage  of  the  highest  forms  of  life  through  successive  states  that 
are  permanent  in  inferior  animals.  We  cannot  now  enter  into  the 
anatomical  details  involved  in  this  question  ;  but  we  refer  to  the 
paper  of  Dr.  Clark,  already  quoted,  for  evidence  that  the  author 
has  misconstrued  and  falsified  the  facts  of  the  case,  to  establish 
the  desired  resemblance.  But  grant  the  analogy  to  be  as  complete 
and  as  strict  as  possible,  what  inference  are  we  warranted  in  draw- 
ing from  it  ?  Nothing  more  than  that  we  find,  in  organic  nature, 
gradations  of  an  original  power,  manifesting  different  energies 
under  different  conditions,  and  working  out  results  that  are  similar 
after  a  general  plan.  The  resemblances  traced,  however  close, 
are  only  the  adumbrations  of  the  unity  of  organic  nature.  To 
construct  a  history  out  of  these  resemblances  is  to  found  a  science 
upon  a  fancy. 

But  we  have  one  instance  in  nature,  the  author  contends,  of  an 
advance  in  species,  and  that  the  more  interesting  because  it  is 
effected,  so  to  speak,  "  by  a  prolongation  of  the  gestation  at  a 
particular  part  of  its  course."  It  has  been  found  that  oats,  if  kept 
cropped  down  through  the  summer  and  autumn,  will  yield  a  crop 
of  rye  the  next  summer.  In  the  first  place  we  doubt  the  fact,  and 
in  the  second,  if  true  it  is  nothing  to  his  purpose,  unless  it  be  first 
proved  that  the  rye  is  borne  by  the  identical  roots  which  sent  up 
oat  stalks  the  previous  year. 

In  addition  to  these  facts  we  have  the  account  of  the  method 
pursued  by  bees  to  raise  a  queen  from  the  same  larva,  which 
under  other  conditions  would  have  produced  a  neuter  or  a  male  : 
this  needs  no  comment,  for  there  is  here  nothing  like  a  change  of 
species.  For  the  same  reason  we  pass  by  the  account  of  the 
changes  produced  in  the  human  species  by  exposure  to  privation 
and  hardship.  It  is  a  familiar  truth  that  imperfect  diet  combined 
with  other  unfavourable  physical  conditions  will,  in  course  of  time, 
affect  injuriously  the  features  and  proportions  of  the  body.  But 
communities  and  tribes  of  men  have  been  for  ages  exposed  to 
such  hardships,  they  have  suffered  through  successive  generations 
all  that  debasing  physical  Conditions  could  inflict  on  them,  and  yet 
we  have  never  seen  the  slightest  tendency  towards  a  loss  of  species. 
The  Greenlander,  and  the  Hottentot,  and  the  pigmy  tribes  of  Ethi- 
opia, have  not  only  kept  the  human  heart  which  responds  to  the 
"  touch  of  nature  that  makes  the  whole  world  kin,"  but  they  have 
preserved  a  body,  in  no  other  sense  approaching  to  the  brute,  than 
that  it  is  less  symmetrical  and  perfect  than  it  would  have  been 
under  better  culture. 

Upon  such  grounds  as  these  the  author  would  seduce  us  into  the 
belief  that  we  who  now  stand  at  the  head  of  creation,  have  grown 


4l#  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

up  from  the  simplest  form  of  vegetable,  by  successive  translations 
01  species,  until  we  have  reached  our  present  state.  It  will  be 
seen  that  we  have  not  a  single  fact  that  bears  definitely  and  cer- 
tainly upon  the  theory  which  he  aims  to  establish,  while  in  oppo- 
sition to  it  we  have  an  unvarying  experience  from  the  beginning 
of  recorded  time  until  now.  The  earth  is  full  of  seeds,  the  air  is 
full  of  them  ;  no  sooner  does  the  work  of  the  coral  insect,  far  off  at 
sea,  rise  above  the  water  and  collect  a  soil,  than  it  is  covered  with 
vegetation.  Countless  myriads  of  seeds  are  continually  germinating, 
and  yet  it  has  never  been  found  that  the  seed  borne  by  one  plant 
produced  a  species  different  from  its  parent.  The  same  law,  without 
exception,  governs  the  propagation  of  animals.  Experiments 
without  number  have  been  made  to  effect  a  change  of  species,  but 
without  success.  Individual  varieties  have  been  produced,  but 
strictly  limited  by  the  essential  character  of  the  species.  There 
is  no  law  of  nature  more  firmly  established  than  that  like  produces 
like,  in  the  vegetable  and  animal  world.  The  two  points  upon 
which  the  author's  theory  turns,  spontaneous  generation  and  the 
transmutation  of  species,  are  alike  destitute  of  foundation.  They 
are  wild  guesses  among  the  possibilities  of  things,  as  far  removed 
as  possible  from  the  prescient  surmises  which  often  point  out  the 
path  of  discovery.  The  author  himself  says  of  Lamarck's  system, 
which  differs  from  his  only  in  being  less  conjectural  and  more  con- 
sistent, that  "  we  can  only  place  it  with  pity  among  the  follies  of 
the  wise."  He  has  good  reason  to  fear  that  his  theory  is  not  des- 
tined even  to  as  long  a  life  as  is  accorded  sometimes  to  the  mis- 
takes of  genius  in  its  random  divinations. 

We  confess  that  there  is  one  argument  for  believing  that  man 
may  have  come  from  the  brute,  stronger  to  us  than  any  he  has 
adduced  ;  it  is  that  men  exist  who  are  capable  of  maintaining  such 
a  theory.  The  author  indeed  becomes  quite  sentimental  in  his 
censure  of  the  common  feeling  that  there  is  any  degradation  in 
such  an  origin  ;  but  if  he  will  devise  an  explanation  of  how  this 
feeling  came  to  exist  so  universally,  and  also  why  it  is  that  the 
nearer  the  brute  approaches  the  human  form,  the  greater  is  our 
aversion,  he  will  be  driven  to  a  deeper  philosophy  than  he  has  yet 
reached,  and  may  learn  to  know  and  reverence  the  sacred  dis- 
tinction between  a  person  and  a  thing.  If  man  were  the  creature 
that  his  theory  makes  him,  if  he  possessed  no  faculties  except  such 
as  are  found  in  an  inchoate  form  in  the  brutes,  if  he  were  designed 
for  nothing  higher  and  better  than  gratification,  though  we  should 
still  reject  his  theory  as  a  scientific  blunder,  we  should  feel  no 
aversion  to  it. 

This  brings  us  to  the  true  point  from  which  this  system  should 
be  viewed,  the  phenomena  of  man's  intellectual  and  moral  nature. 
The  author  finds  that  man  is  "  bound  up,  by  an  identity  in  the 
character  of  his  mental  organization,  with  the  lower  animals," — 
and  he  is  naturally  led  to  seek  for  evidence  of  a  common  origin ; 
we  also  find  in  man  a  certain  resemblance  to  the  brute,  but  co-exist- 


TESTIGES    OF    CREATION.  447 

ing  with  this,  in  palpable  contrast  and  most  evident  superiority  to 
it,  we  find  quite  another  image,  even  the  image  of  God, — and  w^e, 
therefore,  in  seeking  for  his  origin,  are  driven  at  once  to  some  dif- 
ferent line  of  derivation  from  that  by  which  the  lower  animals  have 
come.  His  system,  while  it  professes  to  render  a  full  account  of 
man,  owes  all  its  plausibility  to  the  suppression  of  the  chief  facts 
to  be  accounted  for.  It  is  as  if  a  man  in  constructing  a  theory  of 
the  vegetable  world,  should  confine  himself  to  an  account  of  the 
material  elements  which  enter  into  the  composition  of  plants, 
neglecting  the  assimilating  process  by  which  these  elements  are 
transmuted,  and  the  shaping  power  by  which  they  are  fashioned. 
There  is  a  ground  which  is  common  to  the  organic  and  the  inor- 
ganic world,  but  there  is  also  a  distinctive  peculiarity  by  which 
the  plant  is  diflerenced  from  the  stone ;  and  he  would  deserve 
small  thanks  at  the  hands  of  philosophy  who  should  overlook  this 
capital  fact  in  constructing  this  theory.  So  in  man,  though  there 
are  common  points  between  him  and  the  lower  animals,  there  are 
other  features  in  which  the  only  resemblance  is  one  of  contrast ; 
and  to  omit  these,  or  what  is  quite  as  bad,  if  not  worse,  to  mistake 
their  true  character  and  debase  them  into  bestial  qualities  in  a 
theory  which  aims  to  explain  the  origin  and  destiny  of  man,  this 
to  say  the  least  of  it  is  the  very  extreme  of  ignorance.  The  man 
who  in  attempting  to  give  a  theory  of  electricity  should  seize  only 
upon  the  fact  that  electrical  attraction  is  in  inverse  proportion  to 
the  square  of  the  distance,  and  the  attraction  of  gravitation  in  the 
same  ratio,  and  hence  infer  their  identity,  would  justly  expose  him- 
self to  the  ridicule  which  would  assign  him  a  place  among  the  phi- 
losophers of  Laputa.  What  better  place  does  he  deserve  who 
sinks  the  attribute  of  free-will  into  a  "  liability  to  flit  from  under 
the  control  of  one  feeling  to  the  control  of  another,"  who  main- 
tains that  reason  in  man  is  nothing  more  than  the  educated  instinct 
of  a  brute,  who  confounds  obligation  with  interest,  and  makes  vir- 
tue synonymous  with  agreeable  sensations,  and  after  this  shameful 
degradation  finds  suflicient  likeness  between  man  and  the  lower 
animals  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  his  perfections  are  but  the 
full-blown  flower  which  in  them  is  seen  in  the  bud  ?  It  is  indeed 
easy  for  the  gypsy,  after  he  has  stained  the  skin  of  the  stolen  child 
and  clothed  it  in  rags,  to  estabhsh  its  likeness  to  his  owii  brown 
and  tattered  off*spring. 

The  sacred  Scriptures  apart,  which  give  a  different  account  of 
man's  origin,  we  should  be  perfectly  willing  now  to  yield  every 
position  which  we  have  taken  against  this  author's  theory,  and 
grant  that  man's  body  may  have  been  derived,  as  he  supposes,  by 
a  regular  line  of  succession  through  the  brute  creation  ;  still  we 
contend  that  he  has  that  within  him  which  never  could  have  been 
thus  derived.  It  is  by  certain  analogies  existing  between  him  and 
the  lower  animals  that  this  descent  is  established,  but  we  find  that 
that  which  distinguishes  man,  that  which  constitutes  and  denomi- 
nates him  what  he  is,  is  out  of  all  analogy  with  anything  that 


448  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

appears  in  the  brute  creation  ;  and  if  we  are  led  therefore  to  seek 
for  the  origin  of  his  body,  together  with  those  qualities  which  are 
found  in  a  less  degree  in  irrational  animals,  by  transmission  from 
them,  we  are  compelled  ty  the  same  analogical  argument  to  con- 
clude that  the  higher  qualities,  **  the  nobility  of  reason,  the  infinity 
of  faculties,  the  apprehension,  like  a  god,"  by  which  he  is  contra- 
distinguished from  them,  are  to  be  sought,  not  by  tracing  a  line  of 
ascent  from  below,  but  a  line  of  descent  from  above.  If  man's 
body  with  its  appetites  and  powers  came  from  the  gradual  improve- 
ment of  the  bestial  form  and  nature,  we  must  nevertheless  conclude 
that  God  met  this  body  and  implanted  in  it  a  soul  stamped  with  his 
image.  To  establish  this  conclusion  we  have  only  to  show  that 
man  is  possessed  of  faculties  of  which  no  rudimentary  types  are 
found  in  the  inferior  animals. 

This  the  author  denies.  He  carries  out  the  philosophy  of  sensa- 
tion to  its  legitimate  conclusions,  with  fearless  consistency.  "  It  is 
hardly  necessary  to  say,  much  less  to  argue,  that  mental  action, 
being  proved  to  be  under  law,  passes  at  once  into  the  category  of 
natural  things.  Its  old  metaphysical  character  vanishes  in  a 
moment,  and  the  distinction  usually  taken  between  physical  and 
moral  is  annulled  as  only  an  error  in  terms."  It  is  difficult  to  reply 
to  such  shallow  dogmatism  as  this.  It  is  true  that  there  is  regu- 
larity and  order  in  human  action,  so  that  a  sagacious  man  may 
often  predict  far-off  results.  It  is  true,  as  this  author  asserts,  that 
statistics  have  shown  that  in  large  cities  about  the  same  number  of 
mistakes  is  committed  annually  in  the  direction  of  letters  ;  and,  he 
might  have  added,  that  in  France  it  has  been  ascertained  that  the 
number  of  suicides  and  murders  is  the  same  from  year  to  year,  and 
not  only  so,  but  the  different  methods  of  death  by  poison,  strangu- 
lation, drowning,  and  deadly  weapons,  have  each  its  nearly  constant 
number  of  victims  ;  so  that  in  cases  where  we  might  most  cer- 
tainly expect  to  find  the  wildest  irregularities  of  caprice  we  detect 
the  operation  of  constant  causes.  But  it  is  surely  most  extraordi- 
nary reasoning  to  infer  from  this  regularity,  the  existence  of  a 
physical  law  by  which  it  is  secured.  This  is  another  instance  still 
of  the  disposition  which  this  author  shows  to  seize  upon  superficial 
and  partial  resemblances  in  different  objects,  and  conclude  upon 
their  perfect  identity.  "  No  man  can  say  what  may  be  the  weather 
of  to-morrow ;  but  the  quantity  of  rain  which  falls  in  any  particu- 
lar place  in  any  five  years,  is  precisely  the  same  as  the  quantity 
which  falls  in  any  other  five  years  in  the  same  place."  "  So  also, 
the  number  of  persons  taken  in  charge  by  the  police  of  London 
for  being  drunk  and  disorderly  on  the  streets,  is,  week  by  week,  a 
nearly  uniform  quantity,  showing  that  the  mclination  to  drink  to 
excess  is  always  in  the  mass  about  the  same,  regard  being  had  to 
the  existing  temptations  or  stimulations  to  this  vice."  We  have  in 
these  cases  a  uniform  result ;  and  the  immediate  inference  is,  that 
the  same  law  of  causation  prevails,  and  that  the  human  heart  with 
all  its  affections  and  passions  is  controlled  and  determined  to  a 


TESTIGES    OP    CREATION.  449 

specific  course  of  action  by  the  same  kind  of  influence  which  distils 
the  rain  from  the  clouds.  Has  the  author  no  eye  for  the  differen- 
ces between  these  phenomena  which  he  so  unceremoniously  iden- 
tifies? Are  the  inward  misgivings  of  the  drunkard,  the  awful 
struggles  with  which  he  attempts  to  break  from  an  indulgence 
which  he  knows  is  destroying  him,  the  sense  of  shame  and  self- 
reproach,  and  the  dread  feeling  of  responsibility  which  prey  upon 
his  soul,  are  these  of  no  account  in  determining  whether  the  influ- 
ence which  prevails  over  them  is  the  same  in  kind  with  that  which 
determines  physical  events  ?  Is  the  difference  between  physical 
and  moral  to  be  annulled,  as  only  an  error  in  terms,  simply  because 
we  find  that  in  one  case  as  well  as  the  other,  like  causes  produce 
like  effects  ?  Are  the  facts  given  us  by  human  consciousness  to  be 
thrust  aside  in  determining  this  question  1 

This  is,  after  all,  the  ground  upon  which  the  contest  between 
this  philosophy  and  a  higher  one  must  be  decided.  It  is  doubtless 
important  to  detect  and  expose  the  scientific  blunders  of  every 
particular  system  of  materialism  that  is  at  any  time  set  forth, 
with  sufliicient  pretension  and  plausibility,  to  make  it  dangerous. 
But  though  we  may  thus  refute  one,  we  leave  the  way  still 
open  for  the  introduction  of  another.  We  have  shown  that  the 
author  of  this  work  has  failed  at  every  point,  in  establishing 
his  different  positions,  but  we  have  not  shown  that  some  other 
explorer  in  the  same  direction  may  not  be  more  successful.  It  is 
among  the  facts  of  consciousness  that  we  must  find  the  evidence 
which  sets  aside  this,  and  all  other  systems  of  like  kind.  We  are 
undoubtedly  subject,  in  a  degree,  to  the  same  kind  of  restraint 
which  governs  the  physical  world.  We  are  placed  within  the 
range  of  the  law  of  cause  and  eflfect,  and  form  thus  a  part  of 
nature.  If  we  are  entirely  subject  to  this  law,  then  we  have  no 
philosophy  possible,  but  to  etherealize  matter  and  become  ideal 
pantheists,  or  to  make  mind  only  an  error  in  terms  and  run  into 
materialistic  fatalism.  These  are  the  only  two  courses  left  open 
to  us,  and  it  seems  to  us  a  matter  of  small  moment  which  is  taken. 
We  see  little  to  choose  between  the  spectre  world  of  Spinosa  and 
the  sty  of  Epicurus.  When  a  man  has  taken  away  virtue  from 
us  we  are  not  what  also  he  takes  or  leaves.  But  if  besides  the 
world  of  necessity  there  exists  also  a  world  of  freedom,  and  if 
these  two  worlds  manifest  their  interpenetration  in  man's  conscious- 
ness, then  another  philosophy  is  not  only  possible  but  necessary, 
and  materialism  and  idealism  are  both  discredited  as  partial  and 
incomplete. 

This  author  maintains  that  "  all  mental  phenomena  flow  directly 
from  the  brain,"  a  fact  which  we  learn,  as  he  says,  from  observa- 
tion. We  contend,  on  the  other  hand,  that  this  observation,  inas- 
much as  it  is  limited  to  the  external  conditions  of  the  phenomena, 
without  regard  to  their  intrinsic  character,  must  necessarily  lead 
to  an  erroneous  conclusion.  As  fitly  might  we  conclude  that  the 
air  which  by  its   vibrations  conveys   some  ravishing  strain  of 

29 


450  VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

melody  is  the  cause  of  music,  because  the  presence  of  the  one  is 
essential  to  the  existence  of  the  other.  Observation  proves  that  the 
brain  is  the  organ  upon  which  the  manifestation  of  mental  pheno- 
mena is  more  immediately  dependent,  and  this  is  all  that  it  proves. 
To  learn  whether  the  brain  is  the  proper  cause  of  mental  states,  or 
only  the  necessary  condition  of  their  manifestation,  we  must  extend 
our  observation  beyond  the  brain  itself  and  consider  the  character 
of  the  effects  of  which  we  are  seeking  the  explanation.  The 
moment  this  is  done  consciousness  decides  the  question.  We  feel 
that  in  every  mental  act  a  percipient  agent  is  involved.  Matter 
can  only  give  us  phenomena,  and  that  which  perceives  must 
necessarily  be  different  from  that  which  appears.  The  simplest 
case  of  perception,  the  transformation  of  an  external  object  into  an 
act  of  thought  or  will,  is  sufficient  to  overthrow  every  system  of 
materialism. 

But  brutes  perceive  no  less  than  men.  They  manifest  intelli- 
gence, affection,  and  will.  Here  again,  if  instead  of  confining 
ourselves  to  rude  outward  resemblances,  we  look  calmly  into  our 
own  consciousness,  we  discover  abundant  evidence  that  we  possess 
something  different,  not  in  degree  only,  but  in  kind,  from  anything 
that  is  found  in  the  brute  creation.  In  the  highest  development  of 
instinct  we  find  nothing  more  than  a  kind  of  intelligence  which 
selects  and  uses  means  adapted  to  secure  immediate  ends  ;  and  all 
the  purposes  and  acts  of  the  animal  are  strictly  determined  by  its 
organization.  The  beaver,  the  bee,  and  the  bird,  each  build 
according  to  a  law  impressed  upon  them,  and  if  thwarted  or 
placed  under  circumstances  demanding  some  variation  from  the 
type,  their  contrivances  are  limited  to  an  approximation  to  the 
original  plan.  Man  too  builds,  but  he  builds  after  no  type.  He  is 
free  from  all  law  except  that  which  is  self-imposed.  He  builds  not 
only  for  convenience  and  use,  but  often  for  no  purpose  but  the 
pleasure  of  giving  expression  to  an  idea.  Instead  of  being  restrict- 
ed by  types,  he  is  himself  a  creator  of  types.  Here  he  stands  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  brute.  If  we  compare  together  the  dam 
of  a  beaver,  and  the  Apollo  Belvidere,  we  find  the  rude  resem- 
blance, that  they  are  both  constructions.  But  when  we  look  more 
closely  we  find  that  the  resemblance  vanishes,  and  that  they  stand 
in  marked  contrast.  The  beaver  builds  according  to  a  predeter- 
mined type,  and  for  immediate  use.  The  sculptor,  without  any 
regard  to  use,  and  in  the  exercise  of  perfect  freedom,  forma  a  con- 
ception which  he  feels  to  be  beautiful,  and  then  transfers  this  con- 
ception to  the  marble,  in  which  the  idea  is  so  inwoven  that  it  lives 
through  all  time,  and  speaks  intelligibly  to  all  hearts.  In  giving 
expression  to  his  idea  the  artist  is  no  copyist  of  a  type  that  has 
been  set  him,  either  by  previous  labourers,  or  by  na'ture  herself. 
Neither  the  secret  of  his  power,  nor  the  source  of  our  pleasure, 
lies  in  imitation.  Had  the  sculptor  who  gave  us  the  Laocoon 
group,  copied  the  writhing  and  contorted  limbs,  the  livid  cheek,  the 
agonizing  struggles  of  some  father,  with  his  sons>  crushed  in  the 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION.  451 

convolutions  of  a'  huge  serpent,  we  should  have  felt,  while  looking 
at  it,  such  painful  sympathy  as  the  sight  of  the  actual  scene  would 
awaken.  But  instead  of  this  he  has  so  subdued  the  suffering,  that 
it  becomes  the  translucent  medium  through  which  we  see  the 
"  brave  resolve  of  the  firm  soul  alone  ;"  nor  is  this  all,  but  the  for- 
titude itself  is  so  consummately  expressed  that  the  mind  rests  not 
in  that,  but  is  borne  inward  until  it  is  lost  in  communion  with  that 
humanity,  of  which  fortitude  is  one  of  the  attributes. 

•*  Here,  lovely  as  the  rainbow  on  the  dew 

Of  the  spent  thunder-cloud,  to  Art  is  given. 
Gleaming  through  griefs  dark  veil,  the  peaceful  blue  ' 

Of  the  sweet  Moral  Heaven." 

Here  is  manifested  a  creative  power,  like  in  kind,  though  infi- 
nitely less  in  degree,  to  that  which  the  Divine  Creator  put  forth, 
when  he  fashioned  chaotic  matter  into  shape,  weaving  through  it 
his  thought,  and  giving  it  expression  that  made  the  angels  sing  over 
it  for  joy.  It  is  a  part  of  that  image  of  God  in  which  man  was 
made ;  and  he  only  deludes  and  degrades  himself  who  seeks  a 
kindred  faculty  among  the  brutes. 

It  would  be  easy  also  to  show  that  man  is  contra-distinguished 
from  the  inferior  animals  by  his  possession  of  a  faculty  which  gives 
him  necessary  truth,  independent  of  all  experience.  He  is  capable 
not  only  of  generalizing,  from  the  notices  of  the  senses,  but  he  has 
intuitions  of  truths  that  are  universal  and  necessary.  We  pass 
this,  however,  and  ask  the  attention  of  the  materialist  to  another 
fact  in  human  consciousness.  Besides  the  perception  of  the  useful 
and  the  agreeable,  which  we  have  in  common  with  the  brute — the 
beautiful  and  the  true,  which  we  have  in  contra-distinction  from 
them — we  find  ourselves  possessed  with  the  idea  of  the  good. 
This  idea  is  not  subordinate  to  that  of  "  gratification,"  as  our 
author  makes  it.  An  act  is  never  good  because  it  gives  us  plea- 
sure— on  the  contrary,  it  pleases  us  because  it  is  good.  It  is  written, 
"  blessed  are  they  that  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness,"  and 
not,  righteous  are  they  that  hunger  and  thirst  after  blessedness. 
Goodness  is  not  a  means  but  an  end.  We  not  only  have  this  idea, 
but  we  feel  its  supremacy  over  all  our  other  ideas.  It  is  for  the 
perception  and  realization  of  goodness  that  we  have  been  made  and 
endowed  with  all  our  powers  of  whatever  kind.  Hence  in  connex- 
ion with  this  we  find  the  feeling  of  moral  responsibility,  involving 
in  it  the  consciousness  of  freedom  of  will.  This  is  the  capital  dis- 
tinction of  man,  his  capacity  to  perceive  the  moral  excellence  and 
to  feel  its  power.  It  is  through  this  that  he  becomes  a  partaker  of 
the  Divine  nature,  and  feels  himself  to  be  immortal. 

Of  this  part  of  man's  nature  it  cannot  be  pretended  that  we  find 
any  anticipative  prophecy  in  the  lower  animals  ;  and  hence  the 
difficulty  is  met  by  denying  substantially  the  validity  of  moral  per- 
ceptions and  qualities  in  man.  Man  is  made  for  gratification,  the 
distinction  between  moral  and  physical  is  an  error  in  terms,  free- 


VESTIGES    OF    CREATION. 

will  is  a  liability  to  flit  from  one  feeling  to  another,  virtue  is  of 
course  but  a  name  or  a  sound,  and  the  feeling  of  moral  responsi- 
bility a  delusion  of  the  weak  and  ignorant.  Here  is  the  proper 
turning  point  of  this  whole  system.  If  these  conclusions  to  which 
the  author  is  driven,  and  which  he  does  not  hesitate  to  embrace,  are 
true,  then  let  his  whole  system  be  true.  It  is  no  longer  worth  a 
contest.  But  if  they  are  false,  then  is  his  theory  a  falsehood  and 
a  foul  libel  upon  human  nature.  If  the  sense  of  freedom  which 
springs  up  amid  the  earliest  play  of  our  spontaneous  impulses,  and 
accompanies  us  onward  through  their  regulation  and  control,  in  the 
exercise  of  which  we  feel  ourselves  standing  over  against  nature, 
exempt  from  the  law  of  necessity  which  binds  all  things  else 
together  by  an  adamantine  chain — if  this  be  a  delusion,  interposed 
to  cheat  us  out  of  the  knowledge  that  we  are  no  more  free  than 
the  river  that  seems  "  to  flow  by  its  own  sweet  will,"  then  let  us, 
like  the  old  Egyptian,  feel  and  cherish  our  brotherhood  with  the 
bat,  the  beetle,  and  the  crocodile,  nay  with  the  ocean  and  the  air, 
the  storm  and  the  pestilence.  If  the  feeling  that  we  were  made 
for  something  higher  than  gratification  is  a  superstition,  if  the 
visions  of  good  that  sometimes  break  in  upon  us,  pure  and  glorious 
as  the  light  of  Heaven,  are  the  unrealities  of  a  distempered  imagi- 
nation, then  let  us  dismiss  our  feelings  of  remorse,  since  in  the  per- 
petration of  the  greatest  crimes  we  only  make  an  unprofitable 
investment  of  capital,  and  the  simple  regret  which  might  even  be 
due  to  this  as  a  blunder,  defeats  us  of  the  happiness  which  might 
yet  be  at  our  command.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  peremptory 
truths  of  reason  and  conscience  within  us  are  realities — if  we  feel 
them  to  possess  objective  validity,  so  that  we  are  constrained  to 
believe  in  the  real  existence  of  things  that  are  honest  and  fair  and 
lovely — then  the  system  gives  the  lie  to  our  consciousness,  and  we 
know  that  it  must  be  false,  whether  we  are  able  or  not  to  detect  its 
scientific  fallacies.  Every  man  knows  that  the  cause  of  his  deter- 
mination to  any  particular  course  of  action  is  diflferent  in  kind  from 
that  which  sends  the  cannon  ball  along  its  path.  This  is  a  plain 
and  decisive  fact,  than  which  none  other  can  be  more  certain. 
By  the  mass  of  mankind  it  is  never  called  in  question.  We  never 
hear  the  criminal  excusing  himself  on  the  ground  that  his  brain 
was  badly  organized,  unless  he  has  been  under  the  tuition  of  some 
phrenologist.  It  is  indeed  possible  for  a  man  to  deny  the  primary 
truths  of  consciousness  ;  he  may  call  in  question  the  existence  of 
any  higher  virtue  than  prudence,  and  obliterate  the  distinction 
between  physical  and  moral  as  an  error  in  terms.  He  may  do 
this,  for  it  is  impossible  to  set  limits  to  the  capabilities  of  a  vicious 
theory,  or  a  vicious  life.  But  after  he  has  succeeded  in  proving 
that  we  are  subject  to  the  same  necessity  which  governs  other 
creatures,  and  that  the  notions  of  right  and  wrong,  of  merit  and 
demerit,  ^which  are  entertained  by  the  whole  human  race,  are  but 
universal  delusions,  the  idola  trihus  of  Bacon,  he  will  still,  when 
ofi*  his  guard,  involuntarily  betray,  by  his  admiration  of  self-sacri- 


VESTIGES  OF  CREATION.  453 

ficing  virtue,  and  his  sharp  indignation  against  wrong,  his  recogni- 
tion of  the  morality  which  he  has  disproved.  The  denial  of  this 
power  does  not  destroy  it.  At  a  thousand  points  the  will,  which 
he  has  thrust  aside,  rushes  in  and  tears  to  atoms  the  conclusions  of 
his  puny  logic. 

Here,  then,  we  leave  this  system,  effectually  discredited  at  the 
bar  of  human  consciousness.  In  order  to  establish  the  derivation 
of  man  from  the  brutes,  it  is  driven  to  overlook  or  to  deny  the  very 
qualities  by  which  man  is  constituted  what  he  is,  a  rational  and 
immortal  being,  and  to  set  at  naught  the  plainest  of  all  facts,  the 
most  certain  of  all  knowledge. 


\ 


ESSAY    XV. 


ANALYTICAL   GEOMETRY.* 


The  science  of  Analytical  Geometry  is  one  of  the  most  brilliant 
inventions  of  modern  times.  Next  to  the  Calculus,  it  is  the  most 
important  contribution  ever  made  to  our  mathematical  knowledge. 
Its  power,  as  an  instrument  of  investigation,  is  unrivalled.  Nor  is 
it  less  remarkable  for  the  singular  beauty  with  which  it  classifies, 
in  their  proper  relations,  an  endless  number  of  particular  results, 
than  for  the  facility  with  which  it  discovers  them. 

No  other  branch  of  human  knowledge  is  so  entirely  the  product 
of  one  man's  labours.  Other  sciences  have  reached  their  perfec- 
tion by  slow  degrees.  The  surmises  of  one  generation  have 
become  the  discoveries  of  the  next.  Fractional  and  ill-arranged 
truths  have  preceded  integral  forms  and  scientific  order.  The 
guiding  idea,  or,  as  Coleridge  would  have  called  it,  "  the  mental 
initiative,**  which  is  necessary  to  discover  the  relations  subsisting 
between  the  truths  which  make  up  any  science,  and  arrange  them 
in  their  proper  order,  and  without  which  there  can  be  no  science, 
but  only  an  assemblage  of  isolated  results,  has  been,  in  most  cases, 
gradually  evolved  through  the  successive  labours  of  many  men. 
One  approximation  after  another,  each  nearer  the  truth,  has  pre- 
pared the  way  for  the  production  of  the  happy  idea  which  is  to 
crystallize  an  indigested  mass  of  truths  into  order  and  beauty. 
Astronomy  was  so  ripe  for  the  principle  of  universal  gravitation  at 
the  time  of  its  discovery,  that  the  bustling  Hooke  almost  stumbled 
upon  it,  and  filled  the  ears  of  the  Royal  Society  with  clamours 
against  Newton  for  having  robbed  him  of  his  property.  And  the 
previous  researches  of  others,  especially  of  Wallis,  had  approached 
so  near  the  Calculus  that  Newton  and  Leibnitz  divide  the  glory  of 
its  invention.  The  remote  parentage  of  the  Calculus  of  the  modems 
may  indeed  be  distinctly  traced  to  the  "  method  of  exhaustions  " 

*  Originally  published  in  1841,  in  review  of  "  An  Elementary  Treatise  on  Analyti- 
cal Geometry :  translated  from  the  French  of  J.  B.  Biot,  for  the  use  of  the  Cadets  of 
the  Virginia  Military  Institute,  at  Lexington,  Va. ;  and  adapted  to  the  Present  State 
of  Mathematical  Instruction  in  the  Colleges  of  the  United  States.  By  Francis  H. 
Smith,  A.  M.,  Principal  aiTd  Professor  of  Mathematics  of  the  Virginia  Military  Insti- 
tute, late  Professor  of  Mathematics  in  Hampden  Sidney  College,  and  formerly  Assist- 
ant Professor  in  the  U.  S.  Military  Academy  at  West  Point.'* 


AJ^ALYTICAL    GEOMETRY.  455 

of  Archimedes.  But  there  was  no  such  preparation  for  the  appli- 
cation of  algebraic  analysis  to  define  the  nature  and  discover  the 
properties  of  lines,  surfaces  and  solids.  This  invention  is  the  sole 
property  of  Descartes,  and  it  has  conferred  upon  him  an  immortal- 
ity which  his  more  laborious  speculations  in  metaphysics  have 
failed  to  secure.  His  mathematical  researches,  of  which  he 
thought  little,  now  constitute  the  basis  of  his  fame.*  His  Geome- 
tria,  a  quarto  tract  of  106  pages,  is  one  of  the  few  treatises  which 
mark  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  science. 

Geometry,  until  this  time,  had  been  confined  within  narrow 
limits.  Previous  to  the  institution  of  the  school  of  Plato,  it  had 
discussed  only  the  properties  of  rectilineal  figures,  the  circle,  the 
cylinder,  the  cone  and  the  sphere.  The  method  of  investigation 
was  that  which  is  given  in  the  Elements  of  Euclid,  in  which 
nothing  is  permitted  to  be  done  but  the  drawing  of  a  straight  line 
or  a  circle,  and  nothing  is  assumed  as  true  but  a  few  element- 
ary principles,  denominated  axioms.  The  Platonic  school  contri- 
buted to  Geometry  three  other  curves,  known  as  the  Conic  Sections, 
the  properties  of  which  were  investigated  in  a  similar  manner.  In 
this  school  originated  also  the  celebrated  problems  of  the  duplica- 
tion of  the  cube  and  the  trisection  of  an  angle,  the  first  of  which 
was  solved  mechanically  by  Plato,  and  geometrically  by  his  pupil, 
Menechme,  by  the  intersection  of  two  parabolas. 

The  conic  sections  were  a  most  important  addition  to  the  stores 
of  Geometry,  but  the  chief  glory  of  the  Platonic  school  is  derived 
from  the  invention  of  the  Geometrical  Analysis.  We  have  the 
authority  of  Proclus  for  ascribing  this  invention  to  Plato  himself. 
According  to  this  method,  the  problem  to  be  solved  is  assumed  as 
done,  or  the  theorem  to  be  proved  as  true,  and  from  the  relations 
established  by  this  assumption  a  train  of  reasoning  is  carried  on 
until  we  come  to  some  conclusion  known  to  be  true  or  false,  possi- 
ble or  impossible.  A  synthetical  proof  or  solution  is  then  found 
by  returning  from  the  elementary  truth  or  construction  to  the  ori- 
ginal assumption.  The  conception  upon  which  this  method  rests 
is  a  refined  one,  and  the  method  itself  more  fruitful  in  the  discovery 

•  This  great  man  seems  to  have  been  singularly  unfortunate.  In  his  own  day  he 
was  harassed  by  persecutions,  under  the  charge  of  atheism,  though  he  maintained 
that  the  most  certain  of  all  our  knowledge,  next  to  our  own  existence,  is  the  Being 
of  a  God.  And  but  scanty  justice  has  been  meted  out  to  him  since.  Absurdities 
have  been  laid  to  his  charge  which  he  never  taught,  and  others  have  received  credit 
for  discoveries  of  truth  to  which  he  is  fairly  entitled.  His  famous  "  Cogito,  ergo 
sum,"  the  starting  point  of  his  philosophy,  has  been  misconstrued  and  derided.  He 
has  been  made  to  teach  a  doctrine  respecting  innate  ideas  which  he  expressly  dis- 
claims, his  true  opinion  on  that  subject  being  nothing  more  than  must  be  held  by 
every  one  who  would  escape  from  the  materialism  to  which  Locke's  philosophy  was 
carried  in  the  hands  of  Cnndillac.  And  he  has  been  accused  of  fatalism,  though  he 
was  the  first  to  teach  the  paramount  authority,  in  all  our  reasonings  upon  the  human 
mind,  of  the  eyidence  afforded  by  consciousness,  and  to  apply  this  principle  in  proof 
of  the  liberty  of  our  action.  But  whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  value  of  the  con- 
tributions made  by  him  to  our  knowledge  of  the  mind,  he  was  indisputably  the  first 
to  C€»t  off  the  trammels  of  authority,  and  set  the  example  of  a  proper  method  in 
mental  philosophy.    He  was  a  great  man  among  the  great  men  of  his  age. 


456  ANALYTICAL    GEOMETRY. 

of  truth  than  any  other  of  the  inventions  of  the  ancients.  In  the 
hands  of  Apollonius  and  Archimedes,  it  led  to  those  beautiful  con- 
structions and  demonstrations  which  excited  the  astonishment  of 
the  mathematicians  of  the  14th  and  15th  centuries,  who  were  igno- 
rant of  the  means  by  which  they  were  accomplished. 

But  the  geometrical  analysis  of  the  ancients,  though  the  only 
tentative  method  which  they  possessed  for  the  discovery  of  truth, 
and  the  most  valuable  of  all  their  inventions,  is  tedious  and  elabo- 
rate in  its  processes.  It  contains  no  general  rules  or  methods  of 
investigation.  The  discovery  of  one  truth  has  little  or  no  tendency 
to  lead  to  the  discovery  of  another.  The  preliminary  construc- 
tions and  steps  of  reasoning  to  be  employed,  must  depend  upon 
the  particular  circumstances  of  each  question,  and  much  tact  is 
often  required  to  conduct  the  investigation  to  a  successful  issue. 
A  kind  of  contrivance  is  necessary  in  selecting  the  affections  of 
the  quantities  upon  which  to  found  the  analysis,  and  in  making  the 
proper  graphical  constructions,  which,  proceeding  upon  no  general 
methods,  demands  for  its  successful  practice  only  that  sort  of  inge- 
nuity which  is  no  essential  part  of  a  philosophical  mind.  Lagrange 
or  Laplace  might  be  at  fault  in  the  solution  of  a  mathematical 
riddle,  which  would  present  less  difficulty  to  some  contributor  of 
the  Diarian  Repository,  who  had  spent  his  life  in  poring  over  par- 
ticular results  instead  of  studying  general  principles ;  even  as 
Napoleon,  we  doubt  not,  might  have  been  foiled  at  fence  by  many 
a  petit  maitre  of  Paris. 

The  only  other  general  method  of  investigation  known  to  the 
ancients,  was  that  which  has  been  called  the  method  of  exhatss- 
iionsj  the  invention  of  Archimedes.  The  general  object  of  geo- 
mietrical  science  being  the  measure  of  extension,  it  was  soon  found 
that  the  same  methods  which  sufficed  for  determining  the  ratios  of 
right  lines  to  each  other,  or  of  the  areas  contained  by  right  lines, 
failed  when  the  question  was  respecting  the  length  of  a  curve,  the 
measure  of  the  space  bounded  by  curve  lines,  or  the  volume  com- 
prised within  a  curve  surface.  Right  lines  and  rectilineal  figures 
are  compared  with  each  other  on  the  principle  of  superposition. 
Two  lines  are  of  the  same  length,  when  the  one  being  placed  upon 
the  other,  they  would  exactly  coincide — two  triangles,  parallelo- 
grams, or  other  rectilineal  figures,  are  equal,  if  it  be  shown  that 
they  can  be  made  to  occupy  the  same  space.  In  the  last  analysis 
of  our  reasonings  in  elementary  geometry,  it  will  be  found  that 
they  rest  upon  the  idea  of  equality  derived  from  coincidence  in 
space.  But  this  principle  of  superposition  is  obviously  inappli- 
cable when  we  come  to  consider  curve  lines,  cuvilinear  areas,  and 
volumes.  In  a  curve,  like  the  circle,  which  is  of  uniform  curvature 
throughout,  we  might  take  any  portion  of  it  as  a  linear  unit  and 
determine  the  ratio  which  it  bears  to  the  whole  curve,  or  any 
assigned  portion  of  it ;  but  we  could  not  thus,  by  means  of  the 
principle  of  superposition,  solve  the  general  problem  of  assigning 
the  length  of  the  circumference  of  a  circle,  or  any  other  cui've,  ia 


ANALYTICAL    GEOMETRY.  457 

terms  of  a  right  line.  The  same  difficuhy  prevents  the  compari- 
son of  curvilineal  with  rectilineal  spaces.  It  was  to  overcome 
this  difficulty  that  the  method  of  exhaustions  was  invented  by 
Archimedes.  This  method  essentially  consists  in  inscribing  a  rec- 
tilineal figure  within  a  curve,  and  circumscribing  another  around 
it,  and  obtaining  thus  two  limits,  one  greater  and  the  other  less 
than  the  required  perimeter  or  area.  As  the  number  of  sides  is 
multiplied,  it  is  evident  that  the  difference  between  the  exterior  and 
the  interior  figure,  and,  afortioj%  between  either  of  them  and  the 
curve,  will  be  continually  diminished.  In  pursuing  this  method  of 
approximation,  it  was  found,  in  some  cases,  that  there  was  a  cer- 
tain assignable  limit  towards  which  the  perimeter  or  area  of  the 
inscribed  figure  tended,  as  the  number  of  its  sides  was  increased, 
and  that  the  circumscribed  figure  tended  to  the  same  limit.  This 
limit  was  taken  to  be  the  perimeter  or  area  of  the  intermediate 
curve.  It  was  thus  that  Archimedes  proved  that  the  area  of  a 
circle  is  equal  to  the  rectangle,  under  its  radius  and  semi-circum- 
ference, by  proving  that  this  rectangle  was  always  greater  than 
the  inscribed,  and  less  than  the  circumscribed  polygon.  Any  modern 
mathematician  would  accept  the  demonstration  founded  upon  this 
principle  as  sufficient,  but  the  ancients  always  felt  it  necessary  to 
strengthen  it  by  means  of  the  *  reductio  ad  absurdiimJ  But  the 
cases  are  comparatively  few  in  which  such  a  limit  can  be  found. 
When,  for  instance,  the  length  of  the  circumference  of  the  circle  is 
sought,  it  is  impossible  to  determine  any  line  which  shall  be  con- 
stantly greater  than  the  perimeter  of  the  inscribed,  and  less  than 
that  of  the  circumscribed  polygon.  The  only  resource  in  such  cases 
is  to  approximate  to  the  value  sought,  by  increasing  the  number  of 
sides  of  the  interior  and  exterior  polygons,  and  thus  diminishing  the 
difference  between  them,  and  of  course  between  either  of  them  and 
the  intermediate  curve.  It  was  thus  that  Archimedes,  by  inscrib- 
ing and  circumscribing  a  polygon  of  96  sides,  discovered  the 
approximate  ratio  of  the  circumference  of  a  circle  to  its  diameter, 
to  be  as  22  to  7,  a  result  which  is  too  great  by  the  800th  part  of  the 
diameter,  but  of  which,  nevertheless,  this  greatest  of  the  ancients 
was  so  proud  that  he  directed  it  to  be  engraved  upon  his  tomb. 

This  method  of  investigation,  though  subtle  and  ingenious, 
laboured  under  very  serious  difficulties.  Like  the  Geometrical 
Analysis,  it  furnishes  no  general  methods,  so  that  the  discovery  of 
one  truth  puts  us  in  no  better  condition  for  discovering  another. 
The  reasoning,  too,  is  in  all  cases  indirect,  and  the  demonstrations 
to  which  it  leads  are  so  involved  and  difficult,  that  without  some 
more  compendious  and  effective  instrument  of  research,  science 
must  ever  have  remained  in  its  infancy.  The  ancient  geometers 
succeeded  in  discovering  and  demonstrating  the  chief  properties 
of  rectilineal  figures,  the  circle,  and  the  five  regular  solids.  When 
we  add  to  this  an  imperfect  investigation  of  the  conic  sections,  the 
cissoid,  the  conchoid,  the  quadratrix  of  Dinostrates,  and  the  spiral 
of  Archimedes,  we  have  the  sum  of  the  ancient  geometry.     But 


458  ANALYTICAL    GEOMETRY. 

instead  of  wondering  at  the  fragmentary  and  imperfect  character 
of  abstract  science  among  the  ancients,  our  wonder  ought  rather 
to  be,  that  with  such  feeble  instruments  they  were  able  to  accom- 
plish so  much.  That  their  methods  were  not  more  general  and 
powerful  was  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  early  state  of  sci- 
ence ;  that  with  these  methods  they  were  able  to  reach  so  many 
valuable  results,  is  in  the  highest  degree  creditable  to  their  skill  and 
subtlety. 

From  the  decline  of  Grecian  science  until  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, a  period  of  nearly  two  thousand  years,  geometry  made  no 
considerable  progress.  The  Romans  were  incapable  of  appreci- 
ating what  the  Greeks  had  done,  much  less  of  adding  to  it ;  and 
the  Arabs  did  nothing  more  than  to  translate  the  works  of  the 
Greek  geometers.  In  the  same  state  in  which  Archimedes  and 
Appollonius  had  left  it,  the  science  came  into  the  hands  of  Des- 
cartes, but  it  left  them  completely  revolutionized.  Before  the  time 
of  Descartes  algebra  had  been  applied  to  geometry  by  Bombelli, 
Tartaglia,  and  especially  by  Vieta,  in  his  treatise  on  angular  sec- 
tions. But  they  had  applied  it  only  to  the  solution  of  determi- 
nate problems,  and  derived  from  it  no  advantage,  except  in  the 
greater  brevity  and  power  of  the  language  with  which  it  fur- 
nished them.*  The  general  method  of  representing  every  plane 
curve  by  an  equation  between  two  unknown  quantities,  and 
deducing  all  its  properties  by  algebraic  operations  upon  this 
equation,  is  unquestionably  the  sole  invention  of  Descartes.  No 
hint  of  it  is  to  be  found  in  any  previous  writer  ;  and  they  who 
have  adduced  the  algebraic  solutions  of  geometrical  problems 
given  by  Vieta  and  others,  in  disparagement  of  the  claim  of 
Descartes,  have  shown  thereby  that  they  had  not  penetrated  the 
real  spirit  of  the  Cartesian  geometry. 

In  attempting  to  explain  the  fundamental  conception  of  the 
modern  geometry,  it  will  be  necessary,  in  the  first  instance,  to 
establish  the  possibility  of  translating,  in  all  cases,  considerations 
of  a  geometrical  nature,  into  such  as  shall  be  purely  analytical. 
There  is  no  apparent  connexion  at  first  sight,  between  geometrical 
forms  and  analytical  equations  ;  and  yet  a  little  reflection  wilU 
show  that  it  is  in  all  cases  possible  to  substitute  pure  considerations 

•  The  following  illustration  will  put  the  reader  in  possession  of  the  difference 
between  a  determinate  and  an  indeterminate  problem.  Suppose  the  problem  to  be, 
"  upon  a  given  line  as  a  base  to  construct  a  triangle,  of  which  the  other  two  sides 
shall  be  equal  to  two  given  lines  ;"  it  is  evident  that  the  conditions  are  sufficient  to 
determine  the  triangle  in  magnitude  and  position ;  and  the  problem  is  said  to  be 
determinate.  The  vertex  of  the  triangle  would  be  at  the  intersection  of  the  two 
circles  described  around  the  extremities  of  the  base  as  centres,  with  the  given  lines 
respectively  as  radii.  But,  if  the  base  be  given,  and  the  vertical  angle,  and  it  be 
required  to  find  the  vertex  of  the  triangle,  it  is  evident  that  an  infinite  number  of 
points  may  be  found  which  would  satisfy  the  conditions.  Suppose  the  vertical  angle 
to  be  a  right  angle,  then  since  every  angle  contained  in  a  semicircle  is  a  right  angle, 
if  we  describe  a  semicircle  upon  the  given  base,  every  point  in  this  semicircle  will 
be  the  vertex  of  a  triangle  which  will  fulfil  the  conditions  of  the  problem.  The 
problem  in  this  case  is  indeterminate,  and  the  semicircle  upon  which  the  required 
point  is  situated  is  called  the  locus  of  the  point. 


ANALYTICAL    GEOMETRY.  459 

oi  quantity  for  those  o^  quality,  and  thus  bring  the  whole  science 
of  geometry  within  the  range  of  analysis.  All  our  geometrical 
ideas  may  be  distributed  into  the  three  classes  of  magnitude, 
form  and  position.  No  ideas  can  enter  into  any  geometrical 
question  which  are  not  comprehended  in  one  of  these  three  cate- 
gories. The  first  of  these  presents  no  difficulty.  The  ratios  of 
magnitudes  to  each  other  are  expressed  by  numbers,  and  come 
properly  within  the  scope  of  algebraic  representation  and  analysis. 
The  second  class  of  geometrical  ideas,  those  which  relate  to  form, 
may  be  always  reduced  to  the  third,  since  the  form  of  a  body  must 
of  necessity  depend  upon  the  mutual  position  of  the  different  points 
of  which  it  is  composed.  The  form  of  a  triangle  is  completely 
determined,  if  the  place  of  every  point  on  its  three  sides  is  known; 
and  so  of  any  other  figure.  The  idea  of  form,  in  its  widest  extent, 
is  evidently  comprised  in  that  of  position,  since  every  affection 
of  form  may  be  made  to  depend  upon  an  affection  of  place. 
The  preliminary  difficulty  then,  which  seems  to  lie  in  the  way  of 
subjecting  geometry  to  the  analytical  operations  of  algebra,  is 
reduced  to  the  simple  question  of  representing,  in  all  cases,  consi- 
derations of  position  or  place,  by  those  of  magnitude  or  quantity. 

In  showing  how  to  effect  this  representation,  and  thus  flashing  a 
sudden  light  over  the  whole  field  of  geometry,  Descartes  did 
nothing  more  than  to  generalize  a  method  which  is  every  day 
used,  even  by  the  most  ignorant.  Whenever  we  wish  to  indicate 
the  situation  of  an  object,  the  only  means  which  we  can  employ  is 
to  refer  it  to  other  objects  which  are  known  ;  and  this  reference  is 
made  by  assigning  the  magnitude  of  the  geometrical  elements 
which  connect  the  unknown  with  the  known.  Thus  we  determine 
the  place  of  any  point  on  the  surface  of  the  earth  by  its  distance 
from  the  equator,  and  from  another  fixed  line  chosen  as  a  first 
meridian.  Or  if  one  point  be  determined,  we  can  assign  the  place 
of  any  other,  provided  its  bearing  and  distance  from  the  known 
point  be  given.  These  two  common  methods  of  defining  the 
position  of  a  point  on  the  surface  of  the  earth  are  complete  illus- 
trations of  the  two  kinds  of  construction  most  used  in  analytical 
geometry.  The  methods  are  obviously  susceptible  of  universal 
application.  Let  us  call  the  geometrical  elements  whatever  they 
may  be,  which  make  known  the  position  of  a  point,  the  co-ordinates 
of  the  point,  the  name  imposed  upon  them  by  Descartes,  and 
continued  by  all  his  successors.  The  co-ordinates  of  a  point  upon 
a  plane  are  evidently  two  in  number.  The  position  of  any  point 
upon  a  plane  is  determined  if  we  know  its  distances  from  any  two 
fixed  lines,  not  parallel  to  each  other,  in  the  same  plane.  These 
distances  are  the  rectilineal  co-ordinates  of  the  point  ;  and  the 
two  fixed  lines,  which  are  generally  taken  perpendicular  to  each 
other,  are  termed  the  axes.  We  may  also  fix  the  position  of  a 
point  upon  a  plane,  provided  we  know  its  distance  from  a  fixed 
point,  and  the  angle  made  by  the  line  of  direction  of  this  distance 
with  a  fixed  line.     These  two  elements,  the  distance  of  the  point 


460  ANALYTICAL    GEOMETRY. 

and  the  angle  contained  between  its  line  of  direction  and  the  fixed 
line,  are  the  polar  co-ordinates  of  the  point.  An  infinite  number 
of  other  systems,  besides  those  of  rectilineal  and  polar  co-ordinates 
for  determining  the  position  of  a  point,  may  be  imagined,  but  these 
are  the  only  two  systems  that  are  of  extensive  use.  But  whatever 
may  be  the  system  of  co-ordinates  adopted,  it  is  evident  that  by 
means  of  them  we  may  in  all  cases  make  ideas  of  position  depend 
upon  simple  considerations  of  magnitude,  since  we  may  represent 
always  a  change  of  place  in  a  point  by  variations  in  the  numerical 
value  of  its  co-ordinates. 

Having  thus  shown  that  all  ideas  of  position,  and,  consequently, 
all  our  elementary  geometrical  notions,  may  be  reduced  to  simple 
numerical  considerations,  it  will  be  easy  to  conceive  the  funda- 
mental idea  of  Descartes,  relative  to  the  analytical  representation 
of  geometrical  forms.  It  is  at  once  evident,  from  the  account 
which  has  been  given  of  the  manner  of  representing  analytically 
the  position  of  a  point  upon  a  plane,  that  when  a  line  has  been 
defined  by  any  characteristic  property  which  it  possesses,  this  de- 
finition will  give  rise  to  a  corresponding  equation  between  the 
variable  co-ordinates  of  the  point  which  describes  the  line.  If  a 
point  be  supposed  to  move  irregularly  upon  a  plane,  its  two  co- 
ordinates being  connected  by  no  relation,  will  be  independent  the 
one  of  the  other.  But  if  the  point  moves,  subjected  to  such  a 
condition  as  to  make  it  describe  any  definable  line,  it  is  plain  that 
its  two  co-ordinates  will  have,  throughout  its  course,  a  constant 
and  precise  relation  to  each  other.  This  relation  may  be  express- 
ed by  a  corresponding  equation  between  the  co-ordinates,  which 
will  be  an  exact  and  rigorous  definition  of  the  line,  since  it  will 
express  an  algebraic  property  which  belongs  exclusively  to  all 
the  points  of  this  line.  The  numerical  relation  which,  for  every 
point  upon  the  line,  exists  between  its  co-ordinates,  may  be  in 
some  cases  difficult  to  discover ;  but  it  is  clear,  from  general  con- 
siderations, that  such  a  relation  must  exist,  even  though  we  should 
be  unable,  in  any  particular  case,  to  determine  its  precise  nature, 
and  express  it  by  means  of  an  equation.  One  of  these  co-ordinates 
we  know  must  be  a  function  of  the  other,  though  the  form  of 
this  function  may  not  be  in  every  case  assignable.*  These  con- 
siderations seem  sufficient  to  show,  in  its  widest  extent,  the  possi- 
bility of  defining  any  curve  by  means  of  an  equation  between  the 

•  One  quantity  is  said  to  be  a  function  of  another  when  they  are  so  related  that 
the  value  of  the  one  depends  upon  the  value  of  the  other.  Thus  the  space  passed 
through  by  a  falling  body  is  a  function  of  the  time  of  descent:  the  length  of  the 
circumference  of  a  circle  is  a  function  of  its  radius  :  and,  in  general,  y  is  a  function 
of  X,  if  the  value  of  y  depends  in  any  manner  upon  the  value  of  x.  There  are 
many  cases  in  which  it  can  be  shown  that  one  quantity  is  a  function  of  another, 
though  we  are  not  able  to  assign  the  precise  form  of  the  function,  and  others  still 
in  which  we  can  determine  the  analytical  form  of  the  function,  but  are  unable  to 
find  its  calculable  value.  The  object  of  every  department  of  natural  science  is  to 
determine  the  relations  subsisting  between  the  phenomena  which  it  considers,  or  to 
discover  the  form  of  the  functions  which  connect  them.  The  moment  this  is  done, 
the  science  passes  into  the  hands  of  analysis,  and  takes  a  rational  form. 


ANALYTICAL    GEOMETRY.  461 

co-ordinates  of  every  point  situated  upon  the  curve.  And  this 
equation  will  so  exactly  and  completely  represent  the  curve,  that 
the  one  can  receive  no  modification,  however  slight,  without  pro- 
ducing a  corresponding  change  in  the  other.  Every  property  of 
the  curve  will  be  implicitly  included  in  its  equation,  and  may  be 
deduced  from  it  by  proper  analytical  operations. 

We  have,  for  the  sake  of  simplicity,  confined  the  illustration  of 
the  leading  principle  of  the  modern  geometry  to  the  case  of 
curves,  all  the  points  of  which  lie  in  the  same  plane.  Since  every 
such  curve  may  be  represented  by  an  equation  between  two  co- 
ordinates, the  discussion  of  their  properties  is  termed  geometry  of 
two  dimensions.  A  similar  course  of  reasoning  would  show  that, 
as  the  position  of  a  point  in  space  is  completely  determined  when 
we  know  its  distances  from  three  fixed  planes,  no  two  of  which 
are  parallel  to  each  other,  we  may  define  any  curve  of  double 
curvature,  or  any  surface,  plane  or  curved,  by  means  of  an  equa- 
tion between  the  three  co-ordinates  of  every  point  upon  the  curve 
or  surface.  The  definition,  or  the  mode  of  genesis,  of  the  curve 
or  surface  will  express  a  property  common  to  every  point  upon  it, 
and  the  algebraic  expression  of  this  property,  in  terms  of  the 
three  co-ordinates,  will  constitute  its  equation.  We  thus  have  a 
geometry  of  three  dimensions. 

We  have  attempted  thus  to  state,  and  to  justify,  upon  general 
principles,  independently  of  its  application  to  this  or  that  particu- 
lar case,  the  conception  upon  which  Descartes  founded  his  ge- 
ometry. There  is  not  in  the  whole  range  of  science  a  conception 
that  has  been  more  fruitful  in  results.  It  would  be  diflicult  to 
overrate  its  importance  in  a  scientific  view.  Immediately  upon 
its  announcement  geometry  passed  beyond  the  narrow  limits  which 
had  hitherto  circumscribed  it,  and  entered  upon  a  career  which 
can  never  be  exhausted.  Nor  did  geometry  alone  profit  by  this 
fertile  discovery.  The  science  of  rational  mechanics  was  re- 
modelled by  it,  physical  astronomy  derived  from  it  inestimable 
advantage,  and  it  is  at  this  day  lending  its  aid  to  almost  every 
department  of  natural  philosophy.  It  has  aflTorded  substantial 
help  to  experimental  science  by  giving  the  means  of  constructing 
and  expressing  those  partial  hypotheses,  which,  prior  to  the  dis- 
covery of  a  complete  theory,  are  necessary  to  classify  the  facts 
that  are  already  known,  and  guide  to  the  investigation  of  new 
ones. 

In  comparing  together  the  ancient  and  the  modern  geometry,  it 
is  impossible  not  to  be  struck,  in  the  first  instance,  with  the  great 
advantage  possessed  by  the  latter  in  its  language.  This  advantage 
is  so  striking  that  some  writers  have  been  deceived  into  making 
it  the  essential  distinction  between  the  two  methods.  All  mathe- 
matical language  consists  of  two  parts ;  the  one  expressing  the 
objects  themselves  about  which  we  reason,  the  other  expressing 
the  manner  in  which  these  objects  are  combined  or  related,  or  the 
operations  to  which  they  are  subjected.     In  the  ancient  geometry 


462  ANALYTICAL    GEOMETRY. 

magnitudes  are  represented  by  real  symbols,  a  line  by  a  line,  an 
angle  by  an  angle,  a  triangle  by  a  triangle,  &c.  ;  and  the  relations 
oflhese  magnitudes  to  each  other,  and  the  operations  to  be  per- 
formed upon  them,  are  described  in  words.  In  the  modern 
geometry,  on  the  contrary,  the  magnitudes  about  which  we  reason, 
the  relations  which  they  bear,  and  the  operations  to  which  they 
are  subjected,  are  all  denoted  by  conventional  symbols.  These 
symbols  are  simple,  brief,  and  comprehensive.  Instead  of  a  dia- 
gram, sometimes  exceedingly  complicated,  accompanied  by  an 
enunciation  of  the  truth  to  be  proved,  often  awkwardly  expressed 
because  of  the  limitations  by  which  it  must  be  guarded,  and  a  de- 
monstration which  brings  the  matter  slowly  and  in  successive 
portions  before  the  mind,  we  have  in  the  symbols  and  operations 
of  algebra,  as  applied  to  geometry,  so  much  meaning  concentrated 
into  a  narrow  space,  expressed  with  such  distinctness  and  force, 
and  brought  with  such  entireness  to  the  notice  of  the  mind  before 
the  impression  made  by  one  part  has  been  weakened,  that  the 
reasoning  powers  cannot  but  be  greatly  aided,  and  guarded  against 
error.  These  symbols  afford  us  also  the  means  of  simplifying  all 
the  operations  to  be  performed.  By  means  of  them  we  are  ena- 
bled to  reduce  all  possible  relations  between  the  objects  of  our 
reasoning  to  the  simplest  of  those  relations,  that  of  equality;  and 
a  still  more  important  advantage  is  gained  in  the  substitution 
which  we  are  able  to  make  of  the  arithmetical  operations  of  multi- 
plication and  division,  instead  of  the  geometrical  method  of  the 
composition  and  division  of  ratios. 

But  immense  as  is  the  superiority  conferred  upon  the  modern 
geometry  by  the  comprehensiveness  and  power  of  its  language, 
it  is  not  in  this  that  its  essential  spirit  resides.  Without  the  aid 
of  this  language  it  never  could  have  reached  its  present  state  of 
perfection ;  but  we  are  not  entitled  therefore  to  infer  that  its  pecu- 
liar character  is  derived  from  the  symbols  it  employs.  The  use 
of  these  symbols,  or  of  others  possessing  a  like  simplicity  and  con- 
centration of  meaning,  was  essential  to  the  development  of  the 
science  as  we  now  have  it,  but  its  logical  character  is  indepen- 
dent of  its  language.  This  language  may  be,  and  often  is,  applied 
to  the  solution  of  determinate  problems  in  geometry,  which  pos- 
sess, nevertheless,  the  character  of  the  ancient  geometry  ;  and  it 
is  possible,  on  the  other  hand,  to  apply,  in  some  cases,  the  sub- 
stance of  the  modern  method  without  the  use  of  its  peculiar 
notation.  A  little  reflection  upon  the  spirit  of  the  two  methods 
will  be  sufficient  to  show,  that  any  independent  investigation  of  a 
particular  truth,  whether  conducted  by  means  of  graphical  con- 
structions representing  by  real  symbols  the  quantities  about  which 
we  reason,  or  by  algebraic  characters  and  processes, — that  is, 
that  any  special  result  which  is  obtained  in  any  other  way  than 
by  the  application  of  some  more  general  truth  to  the  particular 
case,  belongs  essentially  to  the  ancient  method  in  geometry.  The 
ancient  geometry  is,  in  other  words,  an  assemblage  of  particular 


I 


ANALYTICAL    GEOMETRY.  463 

results  ;  the  modern  geometry  is  a  collection  of  general  truths, 
each  comprising  under  it  an  endless  number  of  particulars. 

We  have  spoken  of  geometry  as  the  science  which  has  for  its 
object  the  measure  of  extension.  This  definition,  though  it  may 
seem  at  first  sight,  by  its  precision,  to  limit  the  scope  of  geometry, 
does  in  reality  require,  for  the  absolute  perfection  of  this  science, 
that  it  should  discuss  all  imaginable  forms  of  lines,  surfaces  and 
volumes,  and  discover  all  the  properties  which  belong  to  each  form.* 
This  statement  immediately  suggests  two  essentially  distinct  modes 
of  investigation  ;  the  one  by  taking  up,  one  by  one,  these  geometrical 
forms,  and  determining  separately  all  the  properties  of  each  ;  the 
other,  by  grouping  together  the  discussion  of  analogous  properties,no 
matter  how  diflerent  in  other  respects  may  be  the  bodiesf  to  which 
they  belong.  In  other  words,  our  geometrical  researches  may  be 
conducted,  and  the  results  of  them  arranged  in  relation  to  the  differ- 
ent bodies  which  are  the  object  of  study,  or  in  relation  to  the  proper- 
ties which  these  bodies  present.  The  first  of  these  was  the  method 
pursued  by  the  ancients.  They  studied,  one  by  one,  the  properties  of 
the  straight  line, the  circle, the  ellipse,the  hyperbola, &c., separating 
the  different  questions  pertaining  to  each  from  those  which  related 
to  other  curves  or  surfaces,  no  matter  how  strong  the  analogies 
might  be  between  them.  This  method  of  investigation,  though 
simple  and  natural,  is  obviously  characteristic  of  the  infancy  of 
science.  The  complete  mastery  of  the  properties  of  one  curve 
affords  no  aid  for  discovering  those  of  another,  beyond  the  skill  and 
tact  which  the  previous  study  has  imparted.  No  matter  how 
similar  may  be  the  questions  discussed  respecting  different  curves, 
the  complete  solution  of  them  in  relation  to  one  leaves  us  to  com- 
mence investigation  anew  for  every  other.  However  similar  a 
problem  may  be  to  one  already  solved  for  some  other  curve,  we 
can  never  be  certain  beforehand  that  we  shall  have  sufficient 
address  to  solve  it  under  its  modified  form.  Though  we  may,  for 
example,  have  learned  how  to  draw  a  tangent  to  an  ellipse  or  hyper- 
bola, this  gives  us  no  aid  in  determining  the  tangent  to  any  other 
curve.  Geometry,  thus  studied,  is,  as  we  have  already  called  it, 
evidently  nothing  more  than  a  collection  of  particular  results,  des- 
titute of  those  general  classifying  truths  which  are  necessary  to 
constitute  a  science. 

The  modern  geometry,  on  the  other  hand,  instead  of  investigat- 
ing seriatim  the  properties  of  each  geometrical  form,  groups  toge- 
ther all  affections  of  a  like  kind  and  discusses  them  without  regard 
to  the  particular  bodies  to  which  they  belong.  It  passes  over,  for 
instance,  the  particular  problem  of  finding  the  area  of  the  circle, 
and  solves  the  general  problem  of  finding  the  area  bounded  by  any 

•  For  a  lucid  exposition  of  this  and  some  other  points  briefly  discussed  in  this 
article,  the  reader  is  referred  to  M.  Comte's  Cours  de  Philosophic  Positive^  Legon 
lOe. 

f  We  use  the  term  body,  for  convenience  sake,  to  designate  the  objects  of  geome- 
trical study,  lines,  surfaces  and  volumes. 


464  ANALYTICAL    GEOMETRY. 

curve  line  whatever.  Instead  of  investigating  the  asymptote  to 
the  hyperbola,  and  then  remaining  in  no  better  condition  than 
before  for  discovering  whether  any  new  curve  has  asymptotes  or 
not,  it  puts  us  in  possession  at  once  of  a  general  method  for  deter- 
mining the  asymptotic  lines,  straight  or  curved,  which  belong  to 
any  curve  whatever.  The  modern  geometry  treats  thus,  in  a 
manner  perfectly  general,  every  question  relative  to  the  same  geo- 
metrical property  or  affection,  without  regard  to  the  particular 
body  to  which  it  may  belong.  The  application  of  the  general 
theorems  thus  constructed,  to  the  particular  circumstances  of  this 
or  that  curve  or  surface,  is  a  work  of  subordinate  importance,  to 
be  executed  according  to  certain  rules  that  are  invariable  in  their 
mode  of  application  and  infallible  in  their  promise  of  success. 

Let  any  new  curve  be  proposed  to  one  who  is  destitute  of  the 
resources  of  the  modern  geometry,  and  he  must  commence  first 
by  surmising,  and  that  chiefly  through  the  suggestive  power  of 
graphical  constructions,  what  its  properties  are,  and  then  endeavour 
to  prove  by  methods  altogether  peculiar  to  the  curve  in  hand,  that 
it  possesses  the  properties  the  existence  of  which  he  has  divined, 
with  no  certainty  derived  from  his  previous  knowledge  that  he  will 
be  able  to  succeed  in  this  particular  case.  Foiled  amid  its  intri- 
cate specialities  he  may  be  reduced,  as  was  the  great  Galileo,  to 
the  mortifying  necessity  of  calling  in  the  mechanical  aid  of  the 
scales  to  supply  the  defect  of  his  mathematical  resources.*  Let  the 
same  curve  be  proposed  to  one  who  has  the  modern  geometry  at 
command,  and  he  will  immediately  determine  its  tangent,  its  singu- 
lar points,  its  asymptotes,  its  radius  of  curvature,  its  involute  and 
evolute,  its  caustics,  its  maximum  and  minimum  ordinates,  its 
length,  its  area,  the  content  of  the  solid  generated  by  its  revolu- 
tion, in  short  all  its  important  properties. 

The  brief  exposition  which  we  have  given  of  the  different 
methods  pursued  by  the  ancient  and  the  modern  geometry,  is 
enough  to  show  on  which  side  the  scientific  superiority  lies.  In 
the  ancient  geometry  special  results  are  obtained  separately,  and 
without  any  knowledge  of  their  mutual  relations,  though  they  may 
be,  in  truth,  only  particular  modifications  of  some  general  truth 
which  embraces  them  and  innumerable  like  phenomena.  The 
modern  geometry  investigates  this  general  truth,  and  then  applies 
it,  in  the  way  of  deduction,  to  all  particular  cases.  Had  we  gone 
on  for  ages  in  the  steps  of  the  ancients,  we  could  have  done  nothing 
more  than  add  to  the  indigesta  moles  of  particular  truths ;  and  no 
matter  how  great  our  success  there  would  still  always  remain  an 
infinite  variety  of  geometrical  forms  unstudied  and  unknown.     On 

•  The  only  stain  upon  the  scientific  reputation  of  this  great  man  is  his  seeking  to 
determine  the  area  of  the  cycloid  in  terms  of  its  generating  circle,  by  cutting  the 
cycloid  and  the  circle  out  of  a  lamina  of  uniform  thickness  and  weighing  them.  It 
is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  power  of  the  modern  analysis  that  any  tyro  can  now 
solve  problems  that  eluded  the  forces  of  such  men  as  Galileo,  Fermat,  Roberval,  and 
Pascal. 


r 


ANALYTICAL    GEOMETRY.  465 

the  Other  hand,  for  every  question  resolved  by  the  modem  geome- 
try, the  number  of  geometrical  problems  to  be  solved  is  diminished, 
for  all  possible  bodies.  The  one  is  a  science,  with  its  general  theo- 
rems lying  ready  for  all  possible  cases ;  the  other  is  made  up  of 
independent  researches,  which,  when  they  have  gained  their  par- 
ticular end,  shed  no  light  beyond  it. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  enter  fully  into  the  exposition  of  the 
peculiar  logic  of  the  modern  analysis,  or  to  contrast  in  detail  its 
merits  with  those  of  the  ancient  geometry.  Many  interesting 
points  of  view  could  be  obtained  by  pursuing  this  comparison  to 
a  greater  length  ;  but  we  have  gained  the  end  which  we  at  pre- 
sent have  in  view  if  we  have  given  an  exposition  of  the  subject 
sufficiently  plain  and  extended  to  enable  the  reader  to  pronounce 
upon  the  scientific  claims  of  the  two  methods.  We  entertain  no 
doubt  what  will  be  the  judgment  rendered. 

The  superiority  of  the  analytical  methods  of  the  modems  is  so 
evident  and  vast,  that  there  has  been  no  attempt,  since  the  publi- 
cation of  the  "  Geometry  of  Curve  Lines,"  by  Professor  Leslie, 
to  revive  the  ancient  method.  This  attempt  was  a  signal  failure. 
Mr.  Leslie  avows  himself  the  champion  of  a  juster  taste  in  the 
cultivation  of  mathematical  sciences,  but  unfortunately  for  his 
success,  no  sooner  does  he  enter  upon  any  question  which  lies 
beyond  the  mere  elements  of  geometry  than  he  betrays  most 
painfully  the  poverty  of  his  resources.  We  have  but  to  open  his 
book  and  read  of  "  a  tangent  and  point  merging  the  same  con- 
tact," of  points  "  absorbing  one  another,"  of  "  tangents  melting 
into  the  curve,"  of  "  curves  migrating  into  one  another,"  &c.,  to 
make  us  sympathize  with  the  humiliation  which  he  must  have  felt 
in  invoking  the  aid  of  poetry  to  establish  the  theorems  of  geome- 
try. We  know  of  no  similar  attempt  made  by  any  scholar  since. 
It  is  now  universally  conceded  that  without  the  aid  of  the  modem 
analysis,  the  science  of  geometry  cannot  be  established  upon  a 
rational  basis.  And  without  the  help  of  geometry,  thus  established 
and  ordered,  all  the  real  sciences,  excepting  only  those  included 
in  the  department  of  natural  history,  must  be  deprived  of  their 
full  development  and  perfection.  The  new  geometry  has  its 
ample  vindication  in  the  "  Mecanique  Analytique  "  of  Lagrange, 
and  the  "  Mecanique  Celeste  "  of  Laplace. 

In  our  own  country,  prior  to  the  publication  of  the  work  named 
at  the  head  of  this  article,  we  had  but  two  treatises  on  the  subject 
of  Analytical  Geometry ;  the  one  a  republication  of  the  elementary 
treatise  of  Mr.  J.  R.  Young,  which  is  chiefly  made  up  from  the 
"Application  de  I'Algebre  a  la  Geometrie"  of  Bourdon;  the  other, 
a  more  recent  publication  from  the  pen  of  Prof  Davies.  We 
do  not,  for  reasons  that  will  be  obvious  enough,  include  among 
treatises  upon  Analytical  Geometry,  the  Cambridge  translation  of 
the  imperfect  and  antiquated  work  of  B^zout.  We  are  glad  that 
Prof  Smith  has  added  his  contribution  to  our  scanty  stock,  by 
giving  us  a  translation  of  the  masterly  work  of  Biot,  one  of  the 

30 


ANALYTICAL    GEOMETRY. 

most  perfect  scientific  gems  to  be  found  in  any  language.  The 
original  needs  not  our  commendation,  and  of  the  translation  it  is 
enough  to  say  that  it  is  faithfully  executed.* 

We  regard  the  multiplication  of  text  books,  on  this  subject,  as 
affording  cheering  evidence  that  juster  ideas  are  beginning  to  pre- 
vail in  our  country  respecting  the  proper  scope  of  mathematical 
education.  And  yet  there  are  colleges  in  our  land  that  comprise, 
in  their  course  of  study,  nothing  of  the  geometry  of  curves  beyond 
what  is  contained  in  Simpson's  or  Bridge's  Conic  Sections,  that 
leave  the  study  of  the  Calculus  optional  with  the  student,  and 
that  are  compelled,  therefore,  to  teach,  under  the  name  of  Natural 
Philosophy,  a  system  that,  at  the  present  day,  is  scarcely  level 
with  the  demands  of  a  young  ladies'  boarding  school.  The  gra- 
duates of  these  institutions  may  be  able  to  classify  plants,  insects, 
and  stones ;  they  may  fancy  themselves  qualified  to  decide  upon 
the  comparative  merits  of  rival  systems  of  world-building  in 
geology ;  but  they  cannot  read,  understandingly,  the  first  ten 
pages  of  any  reputable  treatise  on  mechanics  from  the  French  or 
English  press.  We  have  grieved  long  over  this  state  of  things, 
and  we  hail  with  pleasure  every  symptom  of  a  change  for  the 
better  in  public  sentiment.  If  our  ancient  and  venerable  institu- 
tions of  learning  will  not  elevate  their  course  of  study  into  some 
approximation  to  the  existing  state  of  mathematical  science,  the 
day,  we  hope,  is  not  far  distant  when  the  public  will  discern  that 
they  are  standing  in  the  way  of  a  thorough  education,  and  visit 
them  accordingly. 

*  We  regret  to  see  so  many  typographical  errors  in  the  \rork,  and  some  of  them 
of  a  character  fitted  to  perplex  the  student.  On  page  88  there  is  an  omission  of  the 
transformation  of  an  equation  of  the  Ellipse,  to  remove  the  origin  from  the  vertex 
oi  the  axis  to  the  centre  of  the  curve,  which  confuses  all  the  subsequent  investiga- 


ESSAY    XVI 


BAPTIST  TRANSLATION  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


While  the  existence  of  different  religious  sects  in  the  world 
opens  a  wide  field  for  the  exercise  of  Christian  charity,  the  most 
rational  foundation  for  that  charity  is  laid  in  the  principles  of  the 
separation.  Each  Protestant  sect  admits,  and  with  great  propriety, 
that  a  way  to  heaven  may  lie  through  the  territories  of  all  other 
Christian  denominations,  and  that  every  one  of  the  numerous  forms 
in  which  the  truth  is  held  and  preached,  may  be  instrumental  in 
producing  and  sustaining  a  saving  faith  in  Christ.  We  expect  to 
find  true  piety  in  every  division  and  under  every  name  of  the 
Christian  church.  The  various  denominations  of  Christians,  which 
have  gained  any  considerable  note  in  the  world,  have  kept  up  by 
means  of  their  forms  of  worship,  doctrine  and  order,  their  broad 
distinctions  from  one  another ;  while,  as  to  degrees  of  practical 
piety,  no  one  of  these  prominent  and  prosperous  sects  has  proba- 
bly varied  more  from  the  others,  than  the  same  sect  has,  in  differ- 
ent times  and  circumstances,  varied  from  itself.  We  are,  there- 
fore, as  reasonably  bound  to  cultivate  a  fervent  charity  towards 
the  members  of  other  denominations  as  towards  those  of  our  own. 
We  know  not  at  what  point  in  the  progress  of  the  sincere  but  mis- 
taken upholders  of  error,  our  charitable  regard!  should  stop.  In 
this  state  of  mingled  truth  and  error,  it  is  impossible  for  man  to  fix 
the  precise  line  where  the  light  of  saving  truth  is  bounded  by  the 
verge  of  total  darkness.     No  mere  man  since  the  fall  can  be  sup- 

*  Originally  published  in  1838  in  review  of,  1.  "Constitution  of  the  American 
s^d  Foreign  Bible  Society,  formed  by  a  Convention  of  Baptist  Elders  and  Brethren, 
held  in  the  Meeting  House  of  the  Oliver  street  Baptist  Church,  New  York,  May  12 
and  13,  1836. 

2.  "  Proceedings  of  the  Bible  Convention  of  Baptists  held  in  Philadelphia,  April 
27—29,  1837. 

3.  "  Report  of  the  Board  of  Managers  of  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society, 
embracing  the  period  of  its  Provisional  Organization.     April,  1837. 

4.  "  Christian  Review  and  Translations  of  the  Bible,  Nos.  5  and  8.  March  and 
December,  1837. 

5.  "  First  Annual  Report  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  American  and  For- 
eign Bible  Society,  presented  April,  1838." 


468 


BAPTIST   TRANSLATION    OP   THE    BIBLE. 


posed  to  have  held  the  truth  in  perfection,  and  since  sanctifying 
grace  does  always  co-exist  with  some  degree  of  doctrinal  error, 
who  shall  presume  to  tell  the  precise  degree  of  error  which  limits 
the  saving  operation  ?  Who  is  prepared  to  say  how  much  false 
doctrine  is  the  most  that  a  man  can  hold  and  still  be  saved  ? 

We  make  due  distinction  between  error  itself  and  those  who 
hold  it.  To  regard  a  heretic  with  charity  is  one  thing;  it  is 
another  to  countenance  his  heresy.  We  do  not  deem  it  a  light 
matter  that  false  doctrines  so  widely  prevail  in  the  world,  that  men 
are  so  easily  captivated  by  them,  and  that  the  church  is  so  deeply 
troubled  and  broken  into  so  many  fragments ;  yet  when  the  abet- 
tor of  error  evinces  the  Christian  spirit  in  even  the  smallest  degree, 
we  are  bound  to  receive  him  with  kindness,  and  extend  towards 
him  all  the  offers  of  Christian  fellowship,  which  may  consist  with 
the  safety  of  those  concerned.  The  error  may  be  dangerous,  while 
it  still  has  not  ruined  the  man.  It  might  prevent  his  being  a 
child  of  God,  but  does  it  actually  prevent  him  ?  And  if  not,  ought 
not  the  spark  of  life,  in  its  perilous  exposure,  to  be  fanned  and 
guarded,  and  tenderly  nourished  up  unto  life  eternal  ? 

These  remarks  are  suggested  by  the  view  we  are  about  to  pre- 
sent to  our  readers,  of  the  several  matters  connected  with  the 
documents  named  at  the  beginning  ;  and  our  reasons  for  offering 
them  here  are  these  two :  Because  the  principles  stated  are 
involved  in  our  general  subject ;  and  because  they  indicate  the 
spirit  in  which  we  propose  to  subject  the  matters  before  us  to  this 
public  examination. 

The  Baptists  in  the  United  States  have  shared,  in  their  measure^ 
the  general  improvement  which  has  distinguished,  for  the  last  seve- 
ral years,  the  progress  of  religion  in  this  country.  Their  numbers 
have  increased,  perhaps,  in  fair  proportion  to  the  increase  of  other 
denominations  ;  the  civil  regulations  of  some  important  States  of 
the  Union  afford  them  greater  facilities  for  maintaining  their  pecu- 
liarities than  they  could  formerly  command  ;  the  zeal  of  some  por- 
tions of  their  body,  in  elevating  their  intellectual  and  religious 
character,  has  had  praiseworthy  development ;  their  missionary 
spirit  has,  from  several  peculiar  causes,  been  greatly  enlivened, 
and  the  general  results  of  their  growing  strength  and  activity, 
both  at  home  and  abroad,  must  be  gratifying  to  every  friend  of 
pure  and  ardent  piety. 

In  some  recent  acts  of  large  bodies,  representing  the  most 
important  branch  of  the  Baptist  denomination  in  this  country,  they 
have  assumed  a  position  before  the  Christian  public,  which,  as  a 
matter  of  history,  is  new,  and,  in  its  ecclesiastical  aspects,  bold  and 
startling.  We  allude  to  their  late  proceedings  relative  to  the  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible. 

The  history  of  these  transactions  is  substantially  as  follows : 

In  the  year  1835,  one  of  the  Baptist  missionaries  wrote  from ' 
Calcutta,  to  the  secretary  of  the  American  Bible  Society,  inquir- 
ing whether  money  could  be  obtained  from  that  society  to  aid  in 


BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE.  469 

printing  and  circulating  the  Bengalee  Bible,  translated  on  Baptist 
principles.  The  subject  was  submitted  to  the  board  on  the  sixth 
of  August,  1835 ;  it  was  discussed  freely  at  that  meeting,  at  the 
next  regular  meeting  of  the  board  on  "the  fifth  of  November  fol- 
lowing, at  adjourned  meetings  on  the  nineteenth  of  November,  the 
third  of  December,  and  the  fourth  of  February,  1836  ;  and  on  the 
seventeenth  of  February,  after  the  long  and  serious  discussion 
above  mentioned,  the  board  passed,  by  a  large  majority,  the  fol- 
lowing preamble  and  resolutions : 

"  1.  By  the  constitution  of  the  American  Bible  Society,  its  mana- 
gers are,  in  the  circulating  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  restricted  to  such 
copies  as  are  *  without  note  or  comment,'  and,  in  the  English  lan- 
guage, to  *  the  version  in  common  use.'  The  design  of  these 
restrictions  clearly  seems  to  have  been  to  simplify  and  mark  out  the 
duties  of  the  society,  so  that  all  the  religious  denominations  of  which 
it  is  composed  might  harmoniously  unite  in  performing  these  duties. 

"  2.  As  the  managers  are  now  called  to  aid  extensively  in  cir- 
culating the  sacred  Scriptures  in  languages  other  than  the  English, 
they  deem  it  their  duty,  in  conformity  with  the  obvious  spirit  of 
their  compact,  to  adopt  the  following  resolutions  as  the  rule  of 
their  conduct  in  making  appropriations  for  the  circulation  of  the 
Scriptures  in  all  foreign  tongues. 

"  Resolved,  That  in  appropriating  money  for  the  translating, 
printing,  or  distributing  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  in  foreign  lan- 
guages, the  managers  feel  at  liberty  to  encourage  only  such  ver- 
sions as  conform,  in  the  principles  of  their  translation,  to  the  com- 
mon English  version,  at  least  so  far  as  that  all  religious  denomina- 
tions represented  in  this  society  can  consistently  use  and  circulate 
said  versions  in  their  several  schools  and  communities. 

"  Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  the  above  preamble  and  resolution 
be  sent  to  each  of  the  missionary  boards  accustomed  to  receive 
pecuniary  grants  from  this  society,  with  a  request  that  the  same 
may  be  transmitted  to  their  respective  mission  stations  where  the 
Scriptures  are  in  process  of  translation,  and  also  that  the  said  seve- 
ral missionary  boards  be  informed  that  their  applications  for  aid 
must  be  accompanied  with  a  declaration  that  the  versions  which 
they  propose  to  circulate  are  executed  in  accordance  with  the 
above  resolutions." 

This  act  of  the  managers  was  approved  by  the  American  Bible 
Society  at  its  annual  meeting  on  the  twelfth  of  May,  1836. 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Baptist  Board  of  Foreign  Missions 
in  Hartford,  April  27,  1836,*  a  letter  was  communicated  from  the 
secretary  of  the  American  Bible  Society,  announcing  the  appro- 
priation, by  the  board  of  managers,  of  five  thousand  dollars  to  the 
Baptist  Board  of  Foreign  Missions,  to  promote  the  circulation  of 
the  Scriptures  in  foreign  tongues ;  stating,  however,  that  this  appro- 
priation was  made  in  accordance  with  the  resolutions  of  the  board 

♦  See  Report  of  the  Managers  of  the  Baptist  Board  of  Foreign  Missions,  p.  24. 


0Q  BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF   THE    BIBLE. 

above  given.     On  this  communication,  the  Baptist  board  unani- 
mously adopted  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions : 

**  Whereas  this  board,  at  their  annual  meeting,  held  in  Salem,  in 
April,  1833,  adopted  the  following  resolutions  : 

"  Resolved f  That  the  board  feel  it  to  be  their  duty  to  adopt  all 
prudent  measures  to  give  to  the  heathen  the  pure  word  of  God,  and 
to  furnish  the  missionaries  with  all  the  means  in  their  power  to 
make  the  translations  as  exact  a  representation  of  the  mind  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  may  be  possible  ; — Resolved^  That  all  the  mission- 
aries of  the  board  who  are,  or  who  shall  be,  engaged  in  trans- 
lating the  Scriptures,  be  instructed  to  endeavour,  by  earnest  prayer 
and  diligent  study,  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  original  text ; 
to  express  that  meaning  as  exactly  as  the  nature  of  the  languages 
into  which  they  shall  translate  the  Bible  will  permit ;  and  to  transfer 
no  words  which  are  capable  of  being  literally  translated :  And 
whereas  the  board  still  adhere  firmly  to  these  resolutions,  as 
expressing,  in  their  judgment,  the  only  true  principle  on  which 
translations  can  be  made  ;  and  as  uttering  what  they  believe  to  be 
the  decided  opinion  of  the  great  mass  of  the  denomination  whom 
they  represent,  therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  the  board  of  managers  of  the  American  Bible 
Society  be  respectfully  informed  that  this  board  cannot,  consist- 
ently and  conscientiously,  comply  with  the  conditions  on  which 
appropriations  are  now  made  ;  and  cannot,  therefore,  accept  the 
sum  appropriated  by  the  board  of  managers  on  the  17th  of  April, 
1836." 

From  the  time  of  passing  the  above  resolutions  to  the  annual 
meeting  of  the  American  Bible  Society,  on  the  twelfth  of  May 
following,  the  interval  was  improved  in  summoning  the  largest 
possible  representation  of  the  denomination  to  convene  in  New 
York  on  that  day  ;  on  the  presumption  that  the  society  would 
approve  the  act  of  its  board ;  and  with  the  avowed  purpose,  in 
that  event,  to  propose  at  once  a  separate  "  organization  for  Bible 
translation  and  distribution  in  foreign  tongues." 

The  American  Bible  Society  did,  as  above  stated,  approve  the 
resolutions  referred  to.  Whereupon  the  Baptist  convention,  then 
assembled,  immediately  adopted  resolutions  declaring  that  "the 
American  Baptists  enjoyed  great  facilities  for  prosecuting  the  work 
of  faith  and  labour  of  love  in  giving  the  word  of  God  to  the 
heathen  ;"  and  resolving  "  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Baptist  denomi- 
nation in  the  United  States  to  form  a  distinct  organization  for 
Bible  translation  and  distribution,"  and  they  appointed  a  committee 
to  report  a  constitution,  nominate  officers,  and  prepare  an  address 
to  the  American  public.  The  next  day  a  constitution  was  adopted, 
designating  the  new  institution  as  "  The  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society,  the  single  object  of  which  shall  be  to  promote  the 
wider  circulation  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  in  the  most  faithful  trans- 
lations that  can  be  procured :"  officers  were  appointed,  and  a  reso- 
lution passed   providing,  "that  the  first   annual  meeting  of  the 


I 


BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE.  471 


society  be  held  in  Philadelphia,  on  the  last  Wednesday  of  April, 
1837,  and  that  the  doings  of  this  meeting  and  of  the  society  be 
submitted  to  such  of  the  brethren,  from  different  parts  of  the  United 
States,  as  may  then  and  there  meet  in  convention,  for  the  purpose 
of  securing  the  combined  and  concentrated  action  of  the  denomi- 
nation in  the  Bible  cause."  The  convention  at  Hartford,  in  April, 
1836,  postponed  the  whole  subject  to  the  same  last  Wednesday  of 
April,  which  was  also  the  time  for  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Bap- 
tist Board  of  Foreign  Missions  at  the  same  place. 

There  were,  consequently,  three  distinct  voices  convoking  the 
Baptists  of  the  United  States  in  Philadelphia  on  the  said  last 
Wednesday  of  April,  1837: — The  committee  appointed  by  the 
conference  at  Hartford,  the  first  annual  meeting  of  the  embryo 
Bible  society,  and  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Baptist  Board  of 
Foreign  Missions  ; — all  bearing  on  the  absorbing  question  of  Bible 
translation,  and  altogether  adequate  to  convene  what  the  presi- 
dent called  "  the  largest  body  of  baptized  believers  in  the  world, 
by  a  delegation  unparalleled  either  for  number  or  influence  among 
them."  The  occasion  was  deemed  "  a  crisis"  to  the  denomination, 
and  the  strength  and  wisdom  of  the  body  were  put  in  full  requisi- 
tion. The  organization  previously  formed  in  New  York  was 
apparently  disregarded,  except  to  be  pronounced  presumptuous  and 
premature,  and  the  question  of  a  Baptist  Bible  society  came  up  de 
novo.  The  proposal  was  strongly  sustained,  and  the  society  was 
organized,  and  earnestly  commended  to  the  people  of  their  con- 
nexion throughout  the  United  States. 

The  design  of  this  article  requires  that  we  here  take  particular 
notice  of  the  views  of  the  denomination,  and  of  the  bearings  of 
the  new  society,  as  they  were  disclosed  in  the  debates  and  other 
proceedings  of  that  convention. 

The  two  questions  raised  respected,  1st,  The  expediency  of  a 
distinct  organization  for  Bible  distribution ;  and,  2d,  The  extent  of 
the  object  which  that  organization  should  contemplate.  The  alter- 
native in  the  first  question  was,  either  to  create  a  new  society  to 
do  what  the  Baptists  could  not  conscientiously  do  through  the 
American  Bible  Society,  or  to  commit  that  department  of  their 
enterprise  to  the  Baptist  Board  of  Foreign  Missions.  The  second 
point  brought  up  the  question  whether  the  new  society  should  con- 
fine its  operations  to  the  foreign  field,  or  engage  also  in  home  dis- 
tribution. 

On  the  first  question  it  was  argued  against  the  new  organization : 
That  it  would  render  their  system  of  benevolent  action  needlessly 
complicate  ;  that  the  Baptist  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  had 
hitherto  proved  itself  competent  to  conduct  the  work  of  Bible 
translation  and  distribution,  which,  as  a  part  of  the  missionary 
work,  belonged  to  that  board  ;  and  to  create  another  instrument  to 
do  a  part  of  the  proper  work  of  that  board,  would  imply  a  suspi- 
cion of  malversation  or  incapacity  in  that  institution,  which  had 
not  yet  been  charged  upon  it ;  that  the  Baptists  of  the  United 


472  BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

States  had  too  partially  expressed  their  wishes  for  such  a  society 
to  warrant  that  body  to  form  one  :  that  the  American  Bible  So- 
ciety was  formed  rather  on  principles  of  conciliation,  than  by  com- 
promise of  opinions,  and  a  sectarian  organization  would  dig  the 
grave  of  great  Bible  society  principles  :  that  the  disunion  of  Chris- 
tians in  the  work  of  distributing  the  Bible,  appeared  ill  before  the 
world :  that  the  American  Bible  Society,  embracing  different 
denominations,  had  been  the  means  of  joining  hearts  together 
which  had  otherwise  been  alienated :  that  the  brethren  were  pain- 
fully divided  on  the  question  of  separating  from  that  society ;  and 
that  such  a  separation  was  fraught  with  serious  consequences, 
would  prove  a  bar  to  union  in  all  time  to  come,  and  ought  not  to 
be  urged,  except  for  very  powerful  reasons. 

In  favour  of  a  distinct  society,  it  was  asserted  :  That  the  Ame- 
rican Bible  Society  had  attempted  to  govern  the  consciences  of 
Baptists :  that  the  Baptists  were  able  and  bound  to  give  the  true 
unmutilated  Bible  to  all  the  world :  that  the  Baptists  in  the  United 
States  had  extensively  expressed  their,  desire  for  such  a  society, 
and  that  the  organization  would,  by  the  increase  of  Baptist 
resources,  and  the  progress  of  Baptist  principles,  come  into 
increasing  demand. 

The  reasonings  against  the  new  organization,  although  of  a 
liberal  tenour,  savoured  of  no  indifference  for  Baptist  principles. 
They  were  respectful  and  conciliatory,  implying  confidence  in  the 
American  Bible  Society,  and  admitting  that  i*t  afforded  the  Baptists 
ample  facilities  for  circulating  the  Scriptures  in  a  form  which 
favoured  no  sectarian  principles  more  than  their  own.  They 
betrayed  also  the  suspicion  that  the  project  of  a  new  society  verged 
towards  the  proposal  of  a  Baptist  version  of  the  Bible  in  the  English 
tongue,  and  alarm  lest  the  present  proceedings  should  occasion 
another  subdivision  of  the  denomination. 

In  favour  of  the  new  society  there  appeared  an  ardent  and 
exclusive  zeal  for  the  peculiarities  of  the  sect.  The  purpose  was 
more  than  intimated  of  renouncing  participation  in  Paedobaptist 
operations,  and  of  pushing,  at  all  hazards,  the  enterprise  of  making 
a  Baptist  Bible  for  all  the  world.  The  advocates  of  the  measure 
seemed  to  presume  that  the  kingdom  was  given  to  the  Baptists, 
and  that  the  pregnant  signs  of  the  times  summoned  them  forth  to 
the  sure  and  speedy  conquest  of  the  earth.  One  of  the  most  pro- 
minent speakers  of  the  convention  "  would  not  fetter  the  new 
society,  to  hinder  its  doing  soon  what  may  not  now  perhaps  be 
done ;"  "  a  precaution  unworthy  the  majesty  of  truth,  and  unbe- 
coming the  dignity  of  the  great  denomination  for  which  we  act ; 
the  only  denomination,  as  we  profess  to  believe,  that  is  willing  to 
follow  the  Redeemer  whithersoever  he  may  lead,  and  dares  to 
re-echo  to  the  world  the  whole  and  whatsoever  he  has  said." 

The  other  and  most  agitating  question  related  to  the  limits  they 
would  set  to  the  operations  of  the  new  society ;  whether  they 


BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OP    THE    BIBLE.  473 

would  confine  it  to  the  foreign  field,  or  employ  it  also  in  home  dis- 
tribution. 

It  was  argued  in  favour  of  the  limitation  :  That  the  denomina- 
tion called  for  the  new  organization  to  engage  in  foreign  transla- 
tion and  distribution  only ;  that  the  proposed  enlargement  of  the 
society's  powers  was  not  warranted  by  the  resources  of  the 
denomination,  embracing  not  above  250,000  real  supporters  of 
benevolent  enterprise,  with  literary  and  theological  institutions 
upon  their  hands,  and  not  a  single  institution  endowed  ;*  that  the 
American  Bible  Society  had  resolved  to  complete  the  home  supply, 
and  was  able  to  do  it,  and,  therefore,  another  society  with  a  home 
department  would  be  superfluous ;  that  the  proposed  extension 
would  draw  a  line  of  broader  distinction  between  the  Baptists 
and  the  rest  of  the  great  Protestant  family,  and  involve  the 
interests  of  the  Bible  cause  in  needless  complexity  ;  that  the  dele- 
gates to  that  convention  had  no  authority  to  meddle  with  the  home 
distribution,  having  been  appointed  with  reference  to  a  society  for 
foreign  operations,  and  no  other  ;  that  the  foreign  department  was 
the  only  one  in  which  the  brethren  could  unite  ;  and  that  restrict- 
ing the  society  to  the  foreign  field  would  counteract  the  impression 
that  has  gone  abroad,  that  the  denomination  was  about  to  put  forth 
a  Baptist  Bible  in  the  English  tongue. 

Against  restricting  the  operations  of  the  society  to  foreign  trans- 
lation and  distribution,  it  was  insisted :  That  the  Baptists,  ill-used 
as  they  had  been,  were  impelled  to  withdraw  from  the  American 
Bible  Society  altogether,  and  were  now  too  highly  incensed  against 
the  society  to  do  anything  anywhere  through  its  agency  ;  that  such 
a  restriction  would  disable  the  society  from  doing  anything  suc- 
cessfully, and  imply  a  distrust  of  the  denomination,  lest  they  should 
at  some  time,  and  without  good  reasons,  undertake  to  mend  the 
English  version  of  the  Bible  ;  a  step  which  would  not  be  taken 
immediately,  and  ought  not  therefore  to  be  a  source  of  apprehen- 
sion ;  and  that  the  limitation  would  imply  that  the  received  English 
translation  ought  never  to  be  amended,  and  the  real  mind  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  on  the  ordinance  of  baptism  never  given  to  the  world 
in  intelligible  terms. 

We  have  thus  sifted  out  all  that  seems  to  have  been  intended  as 
argument  on  both  sides,  from  the  printed  report  of  the  long  and 
desultory  debates  of  that  convention.  The  proceedings  of  the 
body,  even  as  they  appear  in  the  printed  report,  remind  us  at  every 

•  •*  Much  had  been  said  with  regard  to  the  strength  of  the  society,  and  the  glorious 
laurels  that  were  to  be  gained  by  it.  Now  what  were  the  facts  in  the  case  ?  We  had 
500,000  communicants,  and  no  doubt  the  greater  part  of  them  were  good  people;  and 
when  he  had  said  that,  he  had  said  all.  The  Baptist  ministry  were  men  of  heart, 
and  they  had  done  gloriously.  He  argued,  that  the  real  supporters  of  benevolent 
enterprise  in  the  Baptist  denomination  did  not  number  more  than  250,000  souls.  He 
next  adverted  to  the  condition  of  the  literary  institutions,  and  theological  colleges 
and  schools,  and  lamented  their  want  of  funds.  He  mentioned  as  an  extraordinary 
fact,  that  not  a  single  institution  was  endowed."  (Speech  of  Mr.  Thresher  o€ 
Boston,  as  reported  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Bible  Convention.) 


494  BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

step  of  the  justness  of  an  expression  of  Dr.  Wayland  on  the  floor 
of  the  convention,  that  "  it  seemed  as  if  brethren  hardly  knew  for 
what  they  had  come  together."  We  pass  no  strictures  here  on  the 
debates  in  general.  Our  concern  is  only  with  the  arguments  on 
the  points  before  us.  It  would  give  no  satisfaction,  either  to  our- 
selves or  our  readers,  to  attempt  to  reconcile  the  dignity  and  weight 
of  those  discussions  with  the  sublime  idea  of  an  assembly  of  Chris- 
tians deliberating  on  the  enterprise  of  "  translating  the  unadulte- 
rated words  of  the  Holy  Spirit  for  all  the  nations  of  the  earth." 

In  the  sketch  of  proceedings  and  arguments  given  above,  our 
readers  cannot  fail  to  discern  the  two  following  points  under  which 
we  propose  to  arrange  the  remaining  matters  of  this  article : 

I.  That  the  Baptists  are  heartily  weary  of  the  controversy 
about  the  meaning  of  the  word  Pareri^u,  and  have  resolved  to  try  the 
short  method  of  exchanging  it  for  some  other  word. 

II.  That  their  project  of  Bible  translation  presupposes  the  ulti- 
mate and  speedy  prevalence  of  Baptist  principles  in  the  world. 

We  feel  no  temptation  to  speak  reproachfully  or  uncharitably 
on  this  subject ;  for  neither  the  present  position  of  our  Baptist 
brethren,  nor  any  part  of  their  past  proceedings,  has  disturbed  our 
brotherly  kindness  towards  them  ;  and  if  we  have  any  other  motive 
in  pursuing  the  following  reflections,  besides  the  desire  for  their 
good  and  the  good  of  our  common  cause,  it  is  the  satisfaction  of 
contemplating  the  aspect  and  bearing  of  the  proceedings  as  a  mere 
section  of  ecclesiastical  history. 

1.  We  have  the  strong  impression  that  the  Baptists  are  bent  on 
getting  rid,  at  all  events,  of  the  word  "  baptize."  It  is  doubtless 
to  them  an  uncomfortable  term  of  theology.  In  translating  the 
Scripture  into  foreign  languages,  they  expect  numerous  and  una- 
voidable occasions  to  adopt  new  words,  and  give  new  senses  to 
old  ones ;  for  how  can  such  a  mass  of  peculiar  ideas  as  the  Bible 
presents  be  conveyed  to  a  heathen  people  without  the  use  of  new 
and  peculiar  words,  or  of  words  in  peculiar  senses  ?  And  in  most 
such  cases  they  will  doubtless  transfer,  as  all  translators  do,  and  as 
the  nature  of  written  language  often  requires  ;  or,  they  will  appro- 
priate vernacular  terms  to  an  uncommon  use,  which  is  in  substance 
equivalent  to  transferring.  But  in  the  present  case  they  take  no 
choice.  They  seem  to  presume,  and  we  think  with  great  plausi- 
bility, that  some  other  word  may  be  to  them  a  more  convenient 
appellation  for  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  may  designate  their 
form  of  the  rite  more  decisively  than  "  baptize."  We  are  not 
surprised  at  the  presumption.  It  is  but  natural  that  they  wish  to 
put  away  from  their  theological  nomenclature  a  term  which  costs 
them  so  much  disputation,  requires  so  much  learning  to  handle  it, 
and  yields  them,  after  all,  so  incomplete  satisfaction,  and  exchange 
it  for  a  word  about  which  there  can  be  no  controversy  ;  Pavri^co  is 
not  sufficiently  exclusive.  It  does  not  clip  the  argument  about  the 
form  of  baptism  with  the  requisite  decision.  The  word  undoubt- 
edly means  what  they  would  express  by  it ; — admit,  for  the  pre- 


BAPTIST   TRANSLATION    OF   THE    BIBLE.  ^tt 

sent,  that  their  sense  is  its  most  common  and  prominent  one ;  yet 
it  draws  after  it  such  a  number  and  diversity  of  ideas,  that  they 
must  either  cut  its  trail  off  or  traffic  the  word  itself  away  ;  and 
having  failed  to  make  clear  work  of  the  former,  they  seem  resolved 
to  attempt  the  latter. 

To  place  in  fair  light  the  character  of  this  procedure,  we  pro- 
pose to  consider  the  avowed  intent  in  connexion  with  the 
una  vowed  bearings  of  the  proceedings  related  above  ;  the  general 
views  with  which,  in  the  minds  of  the  Baptists,  this  design  of  trans- 
lation stands  associated  ;  the  philological  recommendations  of  their 
course  ;  and  its  sectarian  policy. 

The  avowed  design  of  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society 
is  said,  in  the  printed  report  of  the  society  formed  in  New  York,  to 
be,  "  to  give  the  whole  world  a  literal  translation  of  the  Bible  :"* 
— to  create  "  a  distinct  institution  among  the  Baptists,  having  for 
its  object  the  diffusion  of  their  religious  principles  through  the 
instrumentality  of  Zi7era/ uemons  of  the  Bible."t  The  sole  occa- 
sion of  the  rupture  with  the  American  Bible  Society  was  its 
declining  to  aid  in  circulating  copies  of  the  holy  Scriptures  in 
which  fianri^u  is  rendered  according  to  Baptist  views.  "  The 
American  Bible  Society,"  says  the  address  of  the  new  society  to 
the  public,  "  has  refused  to  aid  us  in  giving  the  *  most  faithfuV 
versions  of  our  missionaries  to  the  perishing  heathen,  merely 
because  the  original  word  Parri^u  and  its  cognates  have  been 
translated."  And  "  the  Baptists,  ill-used  as  they  have  been,  had 
no  other  course  left  them  to  pursue  but  to  withdraw  from  the 
American  Bible  Society."  It  is  no  secret,  therefore,  that  the 
original  word  does  not  answer  Baptist  ends.  Our  brethren  seemed 
apprehensive  that  Paedobaptist  fellowship  in  Bible  distribution 
was  purchased  by  them  at  too  dear  a  rate,  and  that  the  prospect 
of  teaching  the  world  their  mode  of  baptism  by  the  language  of 
the  present  English  Bible  was  a  forlorn  hope.  The  head  and  front 
of  the  American  Bible  Society's  offending  against  the  Baptists 
was  its  adherence  to  the  very  word  by.  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
chose  to  denote  the  sacramental  washing ;  and  because  our 
brethren  were  determined  to  put  that  word  out  of  their  versions 
and  substitute  a  word  not  strictly  synonymous  in  its  place,  the 
separation  was  proposed. 

We  request  special  attention  to  this  avowed  occasion  of  their 
proceedings.  And  so  do  they.  They  renounce,  with  emphasis, 
all  other  causes  of  dissent.  Because  they  insist  on  introducing 
into  the  text  of  their  translations,  their  "  note  and  comment"  on 
the  word  "  baptize"  cutting  off  all  further  controversy  about  the 
word,  and  presenting  their  "  four  hundred  millions"  of  readers  with 
a  term  from  which  they  may  derive,  clear,  separate,  and  alone, 
the  idea  of  immersion,  they  have  created  a  new  society,  and 
resolved  to  abandon  the  old.     Their  premonitory  horror  of  carry- 

*  Report,  page  21.  ,  f  Report,  page  22. 


476  BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

ing  the  controversy  about  baptism  among  the  unlettered  millions 
of  Birmah  and  Bengal  has  a  natural  source  in  the  history  of  the 
rite.  They  are  obliged  to  admit  that  under  the  lax  restraint  of  the 
original  "  baptize^*  the  Christian  world  has  largely  backslidden 
from  dipping,  and  gone  up  step  by  step  out  of  the  water  on  the 
secondary  senses  of  the  word,  till  the  ordinance  of  baptism  has 
suffered,  as  they  say,  a  general  misunderstanding  and  perversion ; 
and  the  Paedobaptist  "  error  of  sprinkling,"  to  use  their  own 
words,  "  has  obtained  the  blind  and  almost  universal  suffrage  of 
what  is  called  the  Christian  world."*  It  is,  therefore,  the  avowed 
design  of  our  Baptist  brethren  in  their  new  Bible  Society,  to 
make  the  translated  text  of  the  Scriptures  the  vehicle  of  propa- 
gating their  peculiar  views  of  the  mode  of  baptism  in  foreign 
lands. 

From  this  declared  object  of  our  brethren,  it  is  difficult  to  sepa- 
rate the  unavowed  bearing  of  their  proceedings  ;  the  tendency 
towards  a  Baptist  version  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  English  tongue. 
The  immediate  project  of  an  English  translation  was  not  only 
unavowed,  but  disavowed  by  the  members  of  the  convention. 
Instead,  therefore,  of  putting,  in  so  many  words,  the  impertinent 
question,  whither  are  they  going,  we  will  simply  observe  which 
way  they  have  set  their  faces. 

First,  then,  our  Baptist  brethren  were  aware  of  their  being 
suspected  of  a  design  of  "  putting  forth  a  Baptist  Bible  in  English  ;" 
and  talked  of  passing  resolutions  "  to  allay  the  apprehensions  of 
brethren  of  other  denominations."  Second,  every  principle  of  the 
movement  was  general,  and  every  argument  of  the  convention 
went  in  fact  as  strongly  for  an  English  translation  as  for  a  Birman 
or  a  Bengalee.  Third,  every  speaker  who  alluded  to  the  matter 
of  translation  at  all,  seemed  to  look,  with  one  eye  at  least,  towards 
an  English  translation.  The  expressions  were  artful  indeed,  but 
significant.  "  We  have  no  intention  of  originating  a  translation 
in  English."  "  We  think  it  ought  not  now  to  be  done."  One 
"  did  not  think  it  would  be  done  this  year  nor  the  next,  nor 
without  the  approbation  of  the  denomination."  "  Who  knows," 
exclaims  another,  "  that  the  forty-nine  translators  were  such  very 
learned  men  ?"  "  Where  are  their  learned  works,  their  critical 
and  extensive -knowledge  ?"  Cannot  brethren  "  allow  the  possi- 
bility of  forty-nine  Baptists  meeting  together  and  making  an 
amendment  in  the  version  of  the  Scriptures  ?"  "  Shall  we  hesitate 
to  assume  the  name  of  American  because  it  would  look  towards 
the  period  of  a  change  in  the  version  ?"t  Such  remarks  could 
have  been  naturally  prompted  only  by  a  decided  inclination  towards 
the  project  of  a  Baptist  translation  in  English.  Fourth,  the  society, 
formed  with  express  reference  to  translations,  insisted  long  and 
disputatiously  on  taking  the  name  of  American  and  Foreign, — 

*  Report,  page  23. 

t  Speech  of  Mr.  Cone  of  New  York,  President  of  the  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society. 


BAPTIST   TRANSLATION   OF   THE    BIBLE.  4!^ 

epithets  which  look  to  the  sphere  of  its  operations  ; — and  refused 
to  adopt  the  restricting  clause  "  in  foreign  tongues"  Fifth,  "  The 
Christian  Review,"  which  we  suppose  to  be  as  really  a  leading 
work  of  the  American  Baptists,  as  any  publication  can  be  among 
a  people  who  disclaim  the  reproach  of  ever  being  led,  had  caught 
a  rumour  about  an  amended  version  of  the  New  Testament ;  and 
in  the  number  for  March,  1837,  repelled  the  suggestion  with  ex- 
emplary indignation,  great  vivacity,  and  some  logic.  "  We  pro- 
claim," says  that  paper,  "  our  sincere  and  unchanged  attachment 
to  the  good  old  English  version  made  by  ihe  order  of  king  James 
I.  It  is  our  hearts'  desire  and  prayer  to  God,  that  this  venerable 
monument  of  learning,  of  truth,  of  piety,  and  of  unequalled  purity 
of  style  and  diction,  may  be  perpetuated  to  the  end  of  time,  just 
as  we  now  have  it.  Let  no  daring  genius  meditate  either  change 
or  amendment  in  its  structure  and  composition  ;  neither  let  any 
learned  impertinence  presume  to  disturb  the  happy  confidence  of 
the  tens  of  thousands  who  now  regard  it  as — next  to  the  original 
languages — the  purest  vehicle  through  which  the  mind  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  ever  Conveyed  to  mortals.  Under  God  and  with 
God,  we  feel  prepared  to  stand  or  fall  with  this  consecrated  instru- 
ment, known  and  quoted,  and  familiarized,  as  the  common  standard 
version."*  But  in  the  number  for  December  following,  after  the 
Philadelphia  convention,  and  when  the  new  version  had  been 
more  than  hinted  at,  an  article  appears  on  the  "  principles  of  Bible 
translation  ;"  and  the  hope  is  expressed  "  that  the  Baptists  in  both 
countries  will  be  enabled  to  persevere  firmly,  yet  kindly,  in  main- 
taining the  right  principles  on  the  subject  of  translations  ;"  and 
the  belief  is  asserted  "that  these  principles  must  ultimately  pre- 
vail." So  the  opposition  of  the  Christian  Review  to  a  Baptist 
version,  melted  down  into  attachment  to  abstract  principles  of 
translation.  Sixth,  nature  points  out  the  course  of  our  brethren 
from  where  they  now  stand  ;  for  since  they  make  the  translation 
of  a  word  so  awful  a  matter  of  conscience,  how  can  they  confine 
their  good  work  to  four  hundred  millions  of  the  human  race,  while 
the  field  is  the  world.  It  was  only  by  mutual  compromise,  that 
they  confined  their  operations  for  one  year  to  foreign  lands.  But 
soon  the  home  distribution  must  commence ;  indeed  at  the  recent 
annual  meeting  of  the  society  in  New  York,  they  resolved  to  take 
it  up  at  once  ;  and  then  they  encounter  again  the  untranslated 
fiavri^u,  and  after  the  Birman  precedent  of  conscientiousness,  what 
will  conscience  dictate  then?  How  long  will  the  translating 
society  be  content  to  translate  into  one  language  and  transfer  into 
another  ? 

Whether,  then,  we  may  confidently  look  for  the  speedy  appear- 
ance of  a  Baptist  Bible  in  English,  or  not,  it  seems  that  our  brethren 
have  it  in  mind ;  and  the  full  development  of  their  inceptions 
towards  it  is  probably  to  depend  on  future  circumstances. 

*  Christian  Review  for  March,  1837,  p.  21. 


478  BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

The  aspect  of  these  proceedings  receives  a  tipge  from  the 
general  views  of  the  Baptist  denomination,  on  the  subjects  most 
nearly  related  to  the  design  of  the  new  society.  We  would  not 
affront  our  brethren  by  imputing  to  them  any  theological  system, 
which  is  common  to  all  their  tribes,  and  which  can  be  represented 
by  any  extant  epitome  of  Christian  doctrine.  The  multiform 
views  of  the  denomination  are  not  reducible  to  any  single  standard. 
The  supposition  of  such  a  standard,  to  be  applied  by  ecclesiastical 
authority,  as  a  test  of  doctrine  in  the  churches,  is  irreconcilable 
with  their  theory  of  independence.  It  is  doubtless  from  this  cause 
that  so  little  effort  is  expended  in  their  most  popular  periodicals  to 
reduce  the  doctrinal  views  of  the  body  to  uniformity  on  any  points 
except  baptism.  We  are  struck  with  the  evidence  that  appears  no 
less  in  the  publications  which  hail  from  that  quarter,  than  in  the  par- 
ticular effects  of  their  dispensation  of  doctrines  and  ordinances,  that 
the  primary  sensibilities  of  the  Baptist  conscience  are  awakened  to 
baptism  ;  and  that  the  design  of  Christian  ordinances  as  means  of 
grace  is  liable  to  be  frustrated  among  them,  by  exalting  the  observ- 
ance of  those  ordinances  into  a  term  of  salvation.  We  will  not  insist 
here,  at  length,  on  the  Antinomian  character  of  the  practical  religion 
which  is  cherished  among  the  less  intelligent  classes,  by  the  Baptist 
administration  of  truth  among  them.  When  we  witness,  among 
the  phenomena  of  conscience,  the  cases  of  persons  who  "  feel  a 
burden  on  their  spirit,  and  can  find  no  rest  until  they  have  taken 
up  the  cross  and  followed  the  Saviour  into  the  water,  and  were 
buried  with  him  by  baptism,"  we  see  what  we  judge  to  be  the 
legitimate  effects  of  a  dispensation  of  religious  truth  which  makes 
a  particular  form  of  baptism  an  essential  constituent  of  religion. 
While,  then,  baptism  constitutes  so  much  of  the  Baptists'  religion, 
the  very  name  of  the  rite  becomes  fraught  with  peculiar  solemnity. 
The  ordinance  must  not  be  called,  in  any  language,  by  an  ambigu- 
ous name.  It  is  but  natural  that  a  supposed  error  in  that  name 
should  be  intolerable  in  a  translation  of  the  Bible,  and  that  the 
advantages  of  uniformity  of  translation  throughout  the  Christian 
world  should  be  freely  sacrificed  to  a  scrupulous  precision  in  that 
simple  term.  The  change  of  the  English  version  it  would  there- 
fore seem  must  come.  We  see  no  place  between  India  and  Ame- 
rica, where  such  views  of  the  name  and  nature  of  baptism  will 
permit  a  consistent  and  conscientious  Baptist,  in  this  work  of  trans- 
lation, to  stop. 

We  deem  it  proper,  then,  here  to  consider  the  propriety  of  the 
course  of  our  Baptist  brethren  as  tested  by  the  laws  at  the  present 
state  of  the  philological  controversy. 

A  great  part  of  the  dispute  about  the  mode  of  baptism  has 
turned  upon  the  meaning  of  the  original  word ;  and  this  is  now  as 
much  disputed  as  ever.  No  point  that  favours  the  Baptist  side  of 
the  question  is  now  any  nearer  being  settled  than  at  the  beginning. 
Our  brethren,  therefore,  by  translating  the  word  in  their  sense,  cut 
off  the  unsettled  controversy,  and  abruptly  leave  the  ground.  They 


BAPTIST   TRANSLATION    OF   THE    BIBLE.  4^ 

take  the  thing  for  granted,  which  they  have  utterly  failed  to  prove. 
We  propose  to  present  here  a  few  such  points  of  the  argument  as 
will  place  this  remarkable  instance  of  begging  the  question  in  the 
strongest  light. 

Let  it  be  distinctly  observed  that  we  propose  here  not  to  settle, 
nor  to  make  any  effort  towards  settling,  the  question  in  dispute 
between  the  Baptists  and  the  Paedobaptists,  but  merely  to  show 
that  the  question  is  not  settled  ;  and  that  to  proceed  in  translation 
as  though  it  were  decided,  is  precluding  argument  by  assuming 
the  point  to  be  proved. 

The  point  assumed  is  that  the  Greek  word  Panriia  means  only 
and  always  "  to  dip,  to  plunge."  The  only  just  warrant  for  trans- 
lating the  word  in  that  sense,  where  it  relates  to  the  Christian 
ordinance  of  baptism,  is,  that,  in  this  relation,  it  can  have  no  other; 
and  whether  it  can  have  any  other  sense,  in  such  a  connexion,  is 
to  be  determined  by  its  original  signification,  and  by  the  circum- 
stances of  its  appropriation  as  the  name  of  a  Christian  sacrament. 
The  position  which  we  are  now  concerned  to  support  is  simply, 
that  neither  the  original  and  classic  use  of  the  word,  nor  its  use  as 
a  term  of  Christian  theology,  confines  it  to  the  sense  which  our 
brethren  insist  on  giving  it  in  their  translation.  So  long  as  it 
admits  of  doubt,  and  especially  so  long  as  there  exists  so  clear  a 
certainty,  that  the  word  has  ever  been  employed  in  a  variety  of 
particular  senses,  it  will  be  unlawful  to  institute  a  general  princi- 
ple of  translation  which  shall  restrict  it  to  any  one. 

Take,  of  the  many  instances  which  might  be  adduced  from  the 
classic  authors,  these  two  from  a  single  writer,  which,  though  not 
palpable,  are  sufficiently  so  for  our  purpose.  Aristotle  speaks  of 
baptizing  hay  with  honey  for  diseased  elephants.  He  also  speaks 
otcertain  places,  beyond  the  pillars  of  Hercules,  which,  when  it  i» 
ebb-tide,  are  not  baptized  ( paTrTi^taBai\  but  at  full-tide  are  overflowed 
( KaTan\v^tijQai),  This  last  iustancc,  where  the  word  is  put  in  syno- 
nomy  with Mra«x»{w,  is  conclusive.  Todeluge, to  inundate, is  surely 
a  different  process  from  dipping  or  plunging  ;  in  the  one  case,  the 
water  being  applied  to  the  subject,  in  the  other,  the  subject  to  the 
water.  Here  is  one  instance  in  which  PavTi^ca  undeniably  means 
something  different  from  taking  a  body  and  plunging  it  down  into 
water.  Can  our  brethren  then  quote  classic  authority  to  justify 
the  rendering  of  the  word,  in  every  case,  by  a  term  which  denotes 
only  the  particular  process  of  dipping  a  body  in  water  ? 

But  though  the  classic  objection  to  our  brethren's  proposed 
translation  is  insurmountable,  we  propose  to  lay  chief  stress  on  the 
cases  presented  in  the  Bible.  It  is  there  only  that  we  find  the  word 
employed  to  denote  a  religious  ceremony.  And  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament the  word  Panri^u,  except  when  used  in  a  figurative  sense, 
never  occurs  but  with  some  reference  to  a  religious  rite. 

We  do  not  here  follow  the  word  back  to  its  root  fiavru.  The 
senses  of  that  term  can  decide  nothing,  we  think,  in  regard  to  the 
biblical  sense  of  ffairri^io,  for  two  reasons.     1st.  It  is  settled  by  the 


499  BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

most  satisfactory  research,  that  y^aTro  was  used  in  some  senses, 
which  are  never  ascribed  to  Panri^u ; — in  one  sense,  at  least ;  that 
of  dying,  tinging,  colouring.  2d.  Barrrw  is  never  employed  to 
denote  the  Christian  rite  of  Baptism.  If,  therefore,  we  briefly 
examine  some  of  the  most  prominent  scriptural  uses  of  the  word 
/?«»n<a),  we  shall  present  the  difficulty  which  our  brethren  so 
promptly  dispose  of  in  their  plan  of  translation. 

In  Mark  vii.,  3, 4,  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews  are  said,  "  when 
they  come  from  the  market,  not  to  eat  except  they  baptize  them- 
selves" (jSanricuyvTai  Middle  volcc.)  This  baptism  is  dehned  in  the 
verse  preceding  :  "  Except  they  wash  their  hands  often"  (or  care- 
fully) "  they  eat  not ;  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders."  We  are 
aware  that  Gale  and  some  others  insist  that  the  two  cases  differ 
from  each  other  ;  that  the  case  mentioned  in  the  third  verse,  was 
the  common  washing  of  the  hands  before  every  meal ;  while  the 
baptism  referred  to  in  the  fourth  verse  was  a  bathing  or  immersion 
of  the  whole  body,  on  account  of  the  peculiar  defilement  contract- 
ed in  the  market.  The  first  was  only  a  washing,  as  they  say  ;  the 
other  was  a  baptism,  and  hence,  was  designated  by  a  term  which 
signifies  more  than  washing.  But  baptism  is  the  word  used  for 
that  washing  in  another  place — Luke  xi.,  38.  The  Pharisee 
wondered  that  Christ  had  not  first  baptized  himself  (eparrrioen)  before 
dinner.  As  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Christ  had  been  to 
the  market,  his  baptism  must  have  been  only  the  customary  wash- 
ing before  every  meal.  It  is  further  insisted  that  the  hands,  though 
they  were  the  only  parts  washed,  were  immersed  in  the  process, 
and  hence  the  baptism  was  still  immersion  so  far  forth.  Be  it  so. 
It  follows,  nevertheless,  that  the  immersion  of  the  hands  was  taken 
for  the  baptism  of  the  person  ;  and  accordingly  the  language  cor- 
responded to  that  idea.  "  He  marvelled  that  he  had  not  first 
baptized  himself  before  dinner."  So  the.  complete  ceremony  of 
baptism  was  performed  in  this  case,  at  least,  by  applying  water  to 
a  part  of  the  body,  or,  if  you  please,  a  part  of  the.  body  to  water  ; 
and  ffaitTL^oi  therefore  does  mean  something  besides  the  immersion  of 
the  whole  body.  At  least  it  is  far  from  being  settled  that  it  does 
not.  Yet  we  see  our  brethren  engaged  in  translating  the  word  as 
though  it  were  no  longer  in  dispute,  among  the  best  judges,  whether 
the  word  should  not  in  every  case  be  rendered  by  a  term  which 
signifies  the  immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  water.  "  The  Phari- 
see marvelled  that  he  had  not  immersed  his  whole  body  in  water 
before  dinner  !" 

Our  brethren  will  permit  us  to  state  our  impression  of  the  diffi- 
culty they  must  encounter  in  translating  the  word  in  some  of  those 
instances  where  it  occurs  in  reference  to  the  religious  rite  of  John 
the  Baptist  and  of  Christ.  Matt,  iii.,  II.  "I  indeed  baptize  you 
with  water  ;  but  there  cometh  one  after  me — he  shall  baptize  you 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."  So  Acts  i.,  5.  "  For  John 
truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost."     In  both  these  passages,  the  word  is  used  first  in  a  literal 


s 


BAPTIST   TRANSLATION    OF   THE   BIBLE.  481 

seni?e  and  then  in  a  figurative.  Whether  John  immersed  or  not — 
a  question  which  it  is  not  to  our  purpose  here  to  decide — we  doubt 
not  he  made  copious  use  of  water,  as  the  reference  to  the  figura- 
tive baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  implies.  But  when  we  compare 
this  figure  of  baptism  as  employed  to  denote  the  future  eflfusions  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  with  the  figures  employed  to  describe  the  events 
when  they  occurred,  we  meet  an  insurmountable  objection  to  the 
proposed  Baptist  translation  of  the  word.  And  our  brethren,  we 
think,  must  feel  it.  In  no  case  are  the  actual  presence  and  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit  represented  under  the  similitude  of  immer- 
sion. The  Spirit  falls  on  men,  as  the  Scriptures  express  it,  is  shed 
down,  is  poured  out  on  men,  but  never  are  men  said  to  be  immersed 
in  it.  "  Baptize"  is  therefore  to  be  taken  here  in  a  wider  sense 
than  "  immerse"  will  bear.  Admitting  that  John  did  immerse  in 
water,  it  is  certain  that  God  is  never  said  to  immerse  in  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  and  that  "  immerse"  cannot,  therefore,  in  these  cases,  be  a 
full  substitute  for  "  baptize."  The  idea  of  baptism  conveyed  by 
these  two  uses  of  the  term  "baptize"  cannot  be  compressed  into 
the  smaller  capacity  of  the  word  "  immerse."  As  the  translation 
now  stands,  if  John  be  supposed  to  have  immersed,  there  is  between 
the  two  ideas  of  baptism  with  water,  and  baptism  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  an  incongruity  demanding  a  latitude  in  the  sense  of  "baptize" 
of  which  that  word  is  plainly  susceptible,  but  of  which  the  stricter 
term  "  immerse"  will  not  admit. 

Let  us  suppose  a  Baptist  missionary,  with  his  Baptist  Bible  in 
his  hand,  conversing  with  an  intelligent  and  sagacious  Brahmin  on 
the  conversion  and  baptism  of  the  Ethiopian  by  Philip,  Acts  viii., 
26.  He  opens  at  the  prophecy  which  the  man  was  reading  when 
Philip  joined  him,  found  in  the  fifty-third  of  Isaiah ;  and  the  first 
question  propounded  by  the  Brahmin  will  naturally  be,  "  Of  whom 
speaketh  the  prophet  this  ?"  the  question  put  by  the  Ethiopian  to 
Philip.  This  question  leads  them  back  to  the  thirteenth  verse  of 
the  fifty-second  chapter,  and  there,  like  Philip,  our  Baptist  brother 
begins  his  exposition.     He  shows  how  this  Scripture  is  fulfilled 

in  Christ.     "  Behold  my  servant shall  be  exalted, 

and  be  extolled,  and  be  very  high  (his  visage  was  so  marred 
more  than  any  man,  and  his  form  more  than  the  sons  of  men). 
So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations.  He  was  despised  and  rejected 
of  men,  a  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  grief;  and  we  hid 
as  it  were  our  faces  from  him  ;  he  was  despised  and  we  esteemed 
him  not."  The  Brahmin  is  satisfied  with  the  Baptist's  explanation 
of  the  prophecy  so  far  as  it  refers  to  the  humiliation,  suflferings,  and 
exaltation  of  Christ ;  but  "  where,"  he  will  say,  "  is  the  sprinkling 
of  many  nations  ?  your  Scriptures  say,  Ezek.  xxxvi.,  25,  *  I  will 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you.'  Hence  I  suppose  the  sprinkling 
of  many  nations  is  to  be  a  water  sprinkling.  Please  to  explain  this 
sprinkling.  Philip  preached  Jesus  to  the  Ethiopian,  beginning,  you 
say,  at  this  same  Scripture  ;  that  is,  the  prophecy  commencing  at 
Is.  lii.,  13 ;  and  when  they  came  to  a  certain  water,  the  man  pro- 

31 


482  BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF   THE    BIBLE. 

posed  of  his  own  accord,  as  your  Bible  reads,  to  be  immersed,  or 
plunged  all  over  under  water.  What  part  of  this  Scripture,  as 
rhilip  probably  explained  it,  put  that  sort  of  baptism  into  his 
mind  ?"  We  mistake  if  our  Baptist  brother  would  not,  in  such 
a  conversation,  find  "baptism,"  a  more  convenient  word  than 
immersion. 

Our  intelligent  and  conscientious  Baptist  translators  must  find 
serious  embarrassment  with  Rom.  vi.,  4 — "  We  are  buried  with 
him  by  baptism  into  death."  We  adduce  this  passage  as  one  in 
which,  if  they  apply  their  principles  of  translation,  they  must  beg 
the  question  twice.  First,  by  assuming  the  disputed  point,  that 
baptism  is,  in  this  place,  itself  a  figure  of  the  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  and  second  that  its  figurative  fitness  depends  on  the 
particular  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion.  Baptism  is  understood, 
on  all  hands,  to  denote  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  of  the  hope 
of  salvation  through  his  death,  and  of  our  obligation  and  purpose 
to  obey  his  commands.  When  we  have  mortified  the  sinful  affec- 
tions by  the  exercise  of  faith  and  hope  in  Christ  crucified,  we  are 
said  by  the  apostle  to  have  crucified  the  old  man,  with  Christ ;  and 
the  burial  is  that  of  the  body  crucified.  For  why  speak  of  burying, 
in  the  likeness  of  Christ's  burial,  what  is  not  dead  in  the  likeness  of 
his  death  ?  Can  it  be  supposed  that  such  a  writer  as  Paul  would 
construct  a  figure  of  speech  upon  the  resemblance  between  bury- 
ing a  dead  body  in  the  earth,  and  dipping  a  living  body  into  water 
and  taking  it  immediately  out  ?  It  surely  must  require  the  prepos- 
sessions of  a  Baptist  to  perceive  the  resemblance,  much  more  to 
justify  such  a  use  of  it.  That  the  comparison  ever  entered  the 
Apostle's  mind  is  far  from  being  clear.  We  know  that  many, 
chiefly  Baptists,  hold  that  it  did  ;  and  we  know  too  that  many  of 
equal  authority  think  otherwise,  and  with  strong  reasons  ;  so  that 
it  is  not  to  be  hastily  taken  for  granted,  as  our  brethren  propose  to 
do,  that  the  form  of  baptism  is  here  referred  to  as  an  emblem  of 
the  burial  of  Christ.  But  admitting  that  it  is,  the  allusion  is  not  to 
the  form  alone,  but  also  to  the  import  of  the  rite.  Now  the  Bap- 
tist prefers  his  word  in  this  place  merely  to  give  exclusive  promi- 
nence to  the  form,  as  if  that  alone  were  embraced  in  the  figure. 
He  insists  on  putting  *'  immersion  "  for  "  baptism  "  here,  that  he 
may  concentrate  the  reader's  attention  on  the  act  of  immersing, 
and  on  the  resemblance  between  the  act  and  the  burial  of  Christ, 
as  the  only  reason  why  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  referred  to  at 
all.  He  puts  a  living  body  into  the  water,  and  lifts  it  instantly  out, 
and  calls  that  act  an  imitation  of  laying  out  the  dead  body  of 
Christ  in  the  spacious  vault  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea  !  And  then, 
what  a  jumble  of  ideas  follows  on :  Buried  with  him  by  immersion 
under  water,  that  like  as  he  was  raised  from  the  dead,  so  we  (to 
keep  the  figure  whole)  should  be  raised  up  out  of  the  water.  For 
if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death  ;  i.  e. 
buried  under  water  as  he  was  buried  in  the  tomb  ;  we  shall  be  also 
in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection ;  i.  e.  we  shall  be  raised  up  out 


BAPTIST   TRANSLATION   OP   THE    BIBLE.  483 

of  the  water  !  We  do  yet  feel  a  confidence  that  our  brethren  will 
not  risk  their  reputation  as  Biblical  scholars  amidst  a  nation  of  criti- 
cising and  sagacious  idolaters,  upon  so  evident  a  distortion  of  plain 
Scripture  and  of  common  sense. 

The  case  of  1  Cor.  x.,  2,  the  last  we  shall  here  mention,  presents 
a  difficulty  which  our  brethren,  as  we  should  apprehend,  would 
find  to  be  insurmountable.  "  And  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in 
the  cloud  and  in  the  sea." 

The  first  two  verses  of  this  chapter  are  generally  supposed  to  be 
susceptible  of  only  the  interpretation  which  is,  for  substance,  this  : 
"  To  persuade  you,  brethren,  to  the  greater  diligence  and  persever- 
ance in  the  Christian  life,  and  to  secure  you  the  more  against  a  fatal 
relapse  into  idolatry,  we  would  remind  you  of  the  awful  example  of 
the  Israelites,  who  all  signified  their  belief  in  the  true  God,  and  in 
the  divine  authority  of  Moses,  by  committing  themselves  to  the 
protection  of  the  cloud,  and  marching  under  the  direction  of  Moses 
through  the  Red  Sea.  As  it  is  said  in  Exodus  xiv.,  31,  *  And  the 
people  feared  the  Lord,  and  they  believed  the  Lord  and  his  servant 
Moses.' "  This  we  suppose  to  be  the  true  interpretation.  The 
Israelites'  solemn  submission  to  Moses  on  that  occasion,  was  a 
declaration  of  faith  in  God,  equivalent  to  that  which  the  Christian 
makes  in  submitting  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  The  allusion  is 
to  one  of  the  significations  of  the  rite,  namely,  its  hnport  as  a 
declaration  of  faith.  There  is  no  reference  to  the  actual  adminis- 
tration of  baptism  in  any  form  whatever. 

The  Baptist  Bible  is  to  read,  "  And  were  all  immersed  unto 
Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  The  doctrine  is,  that  "  bap- 
tize "  means  only  to  dip,  plunge,  immerse ;  and  it  must  not  be  taken 
metaphorically  here,  because  the  baptism  must  be  made  out  to  have 
been  an  actual  event.  We  understand  baptism  to  be  mentioned 
here,  instead  of  the  thing  signified  by  it.  Being  baptized  unto 
Moses  means,  in  our  view,  declaring  belief  in  Moses.  But  our 
brethren  insist  that  the  ordinance  itself,  as  well  as  the  faith  it  sig- 
nifies, was  there  at  the  Red  Sea;  and  that  there  was  consequently 
an  immersion.  "  The  cloud,"  says  Dr.  Gill,  "  passed  from  before 
them  over  their  heads  and  stood  behind  them,  and  as  it  passed  it 
poured  down  rain  upon  them,"  Ps.  Ixxvii.,  17.  Thus  with  the 
cloud  successively  before  and  behind^them,  and  the  wall  of  waters 
on  either  hand,  and  dry  ground  beneath,  they  were  completely 
immersed.     This  was  verily  like  plunging  a  person  into  water  I 

We  feel  strongly  tempted  to  rally  our  brethren  upon  their  sup- 
posed observance  of  an  ordinance  of  Christianity,  thousands  of 
years  before  Christianity  was  introduced,  and  some  time  before  any 
Jewish  type  of  Christianity  was  established ;  and  upon  their  sup- 
posed administration  of  that  ordinance  to  two  or  three  millions  of 
people  in  the  mass,  with  their  cattle  too,  and  all  the  appendages  of 
that  immense  caravan ;  and  upon  their  supposed  immersion  in  a 
cloud,  instead  of  proper  water,  while  all  stood  on  dry  ground  ;  and 
upon  their  not  being  dipped  or  plunged  into  the  element,  but  the 


484  BAPTIST   TRANSLATION    OF   THE    BIBLE. 

element  being  brought  and  placed  upon  them  ;  and,  more  than  all, 
upon  the  baptism  of  thousands  of  children,  for  which  the  Baptist 
feels  such  instinctive  abhorrence  ; — but  considering  that  this  is  not 
a  theme  nor  occasion  for  trifling,  we  proceed  to  state  what  we 
deem  the  insurmountable  obstacle  which  the  passage  before  us 
throws  in  their  way. 

To  put  "  immersed  '*  in  the  place  of  "  baptized,"  and  for  the 
reasons  assigned,  will  make  the  passage  a  contradiction  of  histori- 
cal fact.  The  thing  which  our  brethren  mean  by  their  term  was 
not  done.  There  is  no  intimation  that  a  sole  of  the  people's  feet, 
or  a  hair  of  their  head,  was  moistened  during  the  whole  of  that 
wonderful  transaction.  They  went  through  the  midst  of  the  sea 
" upon  dry  ground"  All  our  impressions  of  that  complete  preser- 
vation and  deliverance  lie  against  the  idea  of  their  having  been 
touched  by  water  on  that  occasion  at  all.  As  to  the  cloud,  there 
is  no  proof  of  its  having  been  a  watery  vapour ;  and  its  luminous 
appearance  by  night,  together  with  its  manifest  independence  of 
atmospheric  impulse,  gives  strong  ground  of  presumption  that  it 
was  essentially  supernatural.  The  thunder  and  rain  mentioned 
Ps.  Ixxvii.,  17,  were  more  natural  and  probable  concomitants  of  the 
violent  reflux  of  the  waters  upon  the  Egyptians,  than  of  the  quiet  and 
safe  transit  of  the  Israelites  over  the  dry  bed  of  the  sea.  Where 
then  was  the  immersion  ?  When  the  Birman  reader  of  the  Baptist 
Bible  comes  to  his  minister  for  an  explanation  of  this  passage,  what 
explanation  can  be  given  that  will  consist  at  once  with  Baptist 
exegesis  and  historical  fact? 

It  is  improbable  that  the  jealousy  and  opposition  of  an  intelligent 
idolater  will  suffer  such  palpable  discrepancies  to  pass  unobserved. 
The  Bible  is  ever  to  encounter  the  depraved  ingenuity  and  learning 
of  the  nations  to  whom  it  is  sent ;  its  entire  structure  is  to  be 
repeatedly  and  sagaciously  scrutinized,  and  every  word  disputed, 
which  admits  of  plausible  contradiction.  Especially  so,  since  the 
heathen  nations  are  to  receive  the  gospel  in  connexion  with  those 
facilities  for  general  learning,  which  now  exist  in  unprecedented 
fulness,  and  which  have  ever  kept  science  far  in  advance  of  reli- 
gion, throughout  the  civilized  world.  Christianity  will  unmake 
idolaters  faster  than  it  will  make  Christians.  It  will  discredit  idol- 
atry ;  it  will  persuade  many  to  abandon  their  false  religion  before 
they  are  prepared  to  adopt  the  true.  Hundreds  will  throw  off*  the 
yoke  of  idols  before  they  will  take  up  the  yoke  of  Christ ;  and,  free 
from  the  bondage  of  superstition  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  restraints 
of  true  religion  on  the  other,  they  will  revel  in  the  intellectual  licen- 
tiousness of  infidelity.  Such  men  are  the  most  formidable  enemies 
of  the  Bible  in  heathen  countries.  The  missionary  encounters  in 
them  an  obstacle,  the  most  discouraging,  perhaps,  that  hinders  his 
success.  Such  men  will  abound  in  Birmah ;  and  it  behooves 
Christians  to  shun  the  needless  exposure  of  their  lively  oracles  to 
the  cavils  of  these  industrious  and  ingenious  enemies. 

We  now  respectfully  invite  the  attention  of  our  brethren  of  the 


BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE.  4^ 

new  society  to  the  unanimous  concessions  of  their  own  writers,  as 
to  the  meaning  of  the  word  ffavri^ot.  And  as  these  concessions 
relate  equally  to  this  word  and  to  ^axri^o),  its  reputed  root,  we  shall 
here  take  the  two  words  together.  We  shall  regard  them  as  syno- 
nymous, although  eminent  scholars  insist,  and  we  think  with  some 
good  reasons,  upon  a  difference  between  them.  Especially  since 
the  Baptists  themselves  insist  on  the  synonymy,  we  are  willing  to 
yield  them  all  the  advantage  of  the  concession.  In  the  following 
remarks,  therefore,  we  treat  the  two  words  alike. 

Gale,  in  the  midst  of  his  quotations  from  classic  authors 
(Reflections  on  Wall,  p.  104),  after  adducing  the  most  decisive 
passages,  says :  "  There  are  other  passages  somewhat  akin  to 
these,  which  seem,  however,  to  leave  a  little  more  room  for  the 
objections  of  our  adversaries  ;  where,  though  the  word  is  used,  it 
appears,  by  other  circumstances,  that  the  writer  could  not  mean 
dip  by  it."  He  then  quotes  Aristophanes,  representing  an  old 
comedian  of  Athens  as  practising  the  Lydian  music,  and  making 
plays  and  (PavToiJievos  fiarpaxe^os)  smeaHng  himself  with  tawny  paints. 
He  quotes  also  Aristotle,  saying  of  a  certain  colouring  substance, 
that  when  it  is  pressed  (^an-ra)  it  stains  the  hand.  He  represents 
these  uses  of  the  word  as  metaphorical.  But  how  can  a  man  of 
sense  talk  so  ?  To  smear  or  tincture  the  mind  as  Marcus  Anto- 
ninus says  thoughts  do,  and  to  stain  the  character,  are  metaphors. 
But  to  smear  the  face,  or  stain  the  hatnd,  is  as  literal  a  form  of 
speech  as  can  be  employed.  To  stain  may  be  a  secondary  or 
derivative  sense  of  /S«ttw,  but  not  a  metaphorical.  To  understand 
signified  at  first  merely  to  stand  under ;  and,  as  a  term  of  litera- 
ture, denoted  the  translation  or  explanation  of  a  book  placed  line 
for  line  under  the  text.  By  the  natural  progress  of  language,  it 
came  to  be  said  that  perceiving  the  nature  or  the  meaning  of  a 
thing  was  \.\\g  understanding  oi  \i.  And  now,  if  to  speak  of  under- 
standing a  matter,  is  to  speak  in  a  metaphor,  there  is  nothing  but 
metaphor  in  any  language  ;  for  except  technical  terms,  and  a  few 
words  of  very  uncommon  use,  scarcely  any  words  in  any  lan- 
guage retain  their  original  signification.  To  stain,  then,  is  one  of 
the  senses  of  /Soirroi,  and  by  Gale's  own  showing,  is  used  in  a  case 
where  "  the  writer  could  not  mean  dip  by  it."  The  word,  there- 
fore, does  not  always  mean  to  dip. 

The  same  writer  quotes  from  Aristotle,  respecting  the  ground 
beyond  the  pillars  of  Hercules,  which  was  not  baptized  at  ebb- 
tide ;  and  on  that  use  of  fiairri^ui  he  accords  the  following  admis- 
sion, p.  117.  "  The  word,  perhaps,  does  not  so  necessarily  express 
the  action  of  putting  under  water,  as,  in  general,  a  thing's  being 
in  that  condition,  no  matter  how  it  comes  so  ;  whether  it  is  put 
into  the  water,  or  the  water  comes  over  it ;  though  indeed  to  put 
into  the  water  is  the  most  natural  way,  and  the  most  common,  and 
is,  therefore,  usually  and  pretty  constantly,  but  it  may  be  not  neces- 
sarily implied."  The  word,  then,  may  mean  the  application  of 
water  to  the  subject,  and  not  of  the  subject  to  the  water. 


486  BAPTIST  TRANSLATION  OF  THE  BIBLE. 

Again,  page  137,  he  says  that  in  the  Apocrypha  and  the  Septua- 
gint  Old  Testament,  the  words  /ffoirra)  and  pawri^co  occur  in  but 
twenty-five  places  ;  in  eighteen  of  which  they  undoubtedly  mean 
to  dip.  Well :  and  what  do  they  mean  in  the  other  seven  ?  On 
Lev.  xiv.,  6,  where  a  Hring  bird,  a  bunch  of  cedar  wood  and  hys- 
sop and  scarlet,  were  to  be  dipped  in  the  blood  of  a  single  bird  that 
was  slain,  he  remarks  :  "  We  readily  grant  there  may  be  such  cir- 
cumstances, in  some  cases,  which  necessarily  and  manifestly  show 
the  thing  spoken  of  is  not  said  to  be  dipped  all  over."     P.  138. 

Put  together  now  these  three  concessions,  and  they  are  enough. 
First,  the  word  does  not  always  mean  to  dip  or  plunge,  but  may 
signify  actions  of  another  kind  entirely.  Second,  it  does  not 
necessarily  imply  that  the  thing  or  person  baptized  is  applied  to 
the  water,  but  the  water  may  be  brought  up  and  put  upon  the  sub- 
ject. Third,  it  does  not  in  all  cases  imply  that  the  thing  baptized 
is  entirely  covered  with  the  water,  but  it  may  denote  a  partial 
application.  That  is  to  say,  the  words  permit  the  form  to  be  other 
than  dipping,  they  permit  the  water  to  be  applied  to  the  subject, 
and  in  less  quantity  than  to  cover  the  body.  So  says  a  strenuous 
Baptist ;  and  he  concedes  all  that  the  Paedobaptists  contend  for  ; 
enough  surely  to  give  his  brethren  no  small  trouble  in  their  work 
of  translation. 

This  writer  also  found  great  embarrassment  from  the  use  of 
UaiTTu)  by  the  Septuagint  in  Daniel  iv.,  83  [30]  and  v.,  21.  He  is 
the  only  Baptist  whom  we  recollect  to  have  set  himself  in  earnest 
to  conquer  this  difficulty ;  and  after  long  and  bitter  complaint 
against  the  license  of  the  Greek  translators,  the  substance  of  his 
evasion  is  this  :  page  142,  &c.  As  the  word  is  acknowledged  on 
all  hands  to  mean  primarily  and  generally  to  dip,  there  can  be  no 
difficulty  in  determining  its  meaning  in  this  place.  For,  since  the 
Greek  word  commonly  and  properly  signifies  to  dip,  and  is  put  for 
a  Chaldee  one  of  undoubtedly  the  same  meaning,  it  must  be  very 
natural  to  judge  that  to  be  the  true  sense,  and  what  the  writer  here 
intended.  And  further,  as  a  part  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  dominions 
lay  in  Africa  where  the  dews  were  remarkably  copious,  he  must, 
by  lying  out  all  night  like  a  beast,  have  become  drenched  with 
dew ;  and  the  word  Paitroy  is  used  to  show  that  he  became  very 
wet ;  "  as  wet  as  though  he  had  been  dipped  1" 

We  refer  our  readers  to  the  six  pages  which  Gale  devotes  to 
this  quibble,  as  a  curiosity ;  and  we  do  it  with  the  greater  empha- 
sis, from  the  high  authority  of  that  writer  among  the  Baptist 
denomination.  He  was  undoubtedly  -a  man  of  talents  and  learn- 
ing. The  work  to  which  we  refer  won  for  its  author  a  high  repu- 
tation among  the  English  dissenters  of  his  day,  and  gained  him 
great  and  merited  influence  among  his  own  people.  But  we  can 
feel  little  respect  for  an  opinion  which  rests  for  any  part  of  its 
support  on  such  artifice  and  systematic  cavil  as  is  pursued  in  that 
book. 

In  short,  the  current  qualification  of  the  Baptist  forms  of  speech. 


r 


BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE.  487 


in  relation  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  in  question,  concecfes  all 
that  our  argument  requires.     Gale  qualifies  his  general  asseitions 
by  saying  "  immersion  is  its  proper  and  genuine  sense.     Contan- 
tine  almost  always  renders  it  so."    "  In  eighteen  places  ou^  of 
twenty-five  in  the  Septuagint,  Old  Testament  and  the  ApocrypK," 
says  he  for  substance,  "  it  means  to  dip^  and  in  the  other  severjt 
does  not,  to  say  the  least,  mean  to  sprinkle  or  to  pour."     Te 
Christian  Review  for  March,  1837,  says,  "  While  the  English  la\ 
guage  was  yet  in  its  crude  elements,  to  baptize  meant  ordinarily  t\ 
immerse  or  dip."     The  report  of  the  board  of  managers  of  tht 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  says,  "  When  the  Anglicized 
Greek  word  baptize  was  admitted  into  the  English  language  through! 
the  influence  of  the  Roman  hierarchy,  it  was  then  almost  univer-i 
sally  understood  to  mean  immersion."     The  same  report  appeals' 
"  to  profane  Greek  authors  ;  to  Josephus  and  Philo  among  Jewish 
writers,  to  all  the  lexicographers,  to  the  Septuagint,  and  to  the 
most  learned  of  all  the  commentators,  all  of  whom  admit  the  pri- 
mary rendering  which  we  give  to  the  word  ffaTiTi^u" — Pp.  26,  27. 
The  Christian  Review  reiterates  Dr.  Owen's  concession,  *'  that  the 
original  and  natural  signification  of  the  word  is  to  dip,  to  plunge, 
to  dye."     We  respectfully  ask  the  writer  of  the  article  from  which 
the  above  is  quoted,  whether  his  eye  ever  fell  on  Dr.  Owen's 
assertion  "  that  no  one  instance  can  be  given  in  Scripture  in  which 
the  word  baptize  does  necessarily  signify  either  to  dip  or  to  plungeJ* 
The  same  work  quotes  also  Dr.  Hammond's  opinion, "  that  it  signi- 
fies not  only  the  washing  of  the  whole  body, but  washing 

any  part,  as  the  hands,  by  immersion  in  water."  It  appeals 
also  to  Dr.  George  Campbell,  who  "  maintains  that  immerse  is  very 
nearly  equivalent  to  baptize  in  the  language  of  the  gospels." 
"  The  pious  and  learned  men,"  says  the  same  work,  "  whose 
authority  Booth  has  so  copiously  adduced  in  his  Paedobaptism 
Examined,  could  see  only  immersion  in  the  primary  signification 
of  the  word."  "  We  are  of  opinion"  (we  quote  still  from  the 
Christian  Review)  "  that  the  idea  contained  in  the  word  baptism, 
as  used  in  the  New  Testament,  cannot  be  adequately  expressed  by 
any  single  word  in  our  language.  It  means  more  than  immersion." 
**  We  are  prepared  to  show  that  all  versions,  in  languages  using 
the  Roman  character,  were  made  with  the  express  understanding, 
that  /?airw<«  was  transferred  and  not  translated,  because  there  did 
not  appear  to  be,  in  those  languages,  words  of  an  import  fully 
equivalent."  Carson,  an  eminent  writer  on  baptism,  acknowledges, 
that  in  adopting  immersion  as  the  only  meaning  of  baptism,  he  has 
the  lexicographers  and  commentators  against  him. 

As  we  wish  to  judge  our  brethren  out  of  their  own  mouths,  we 
adduce  only  such  expressions  as  abound  in  Baptist  writers ;  and 
we  have  multiplied  our  quotations  to  show  how  freely  they  admit 
the  thing  we  claim :  that  /?a-w^o)  does  not  exclusively  signify 
immerse,  and  that  immerse,  dip,  plunge,  no  one,  nor  all  of  them, 
in  the  English  language,  nor  any  word  corresponding  to  them 


488  BAPTIST  TRANSLATION    OP    THE    BIBLE. 

in  otter  languages,  would  be  full  equivalent  for  baptize.    When 
the*  i^estion  recurs,  then,  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  as  the 
nape  of  the  Christian  sacrament,  and  appeal  is  had  to  the  ori- 
gijdl  and  general  senses  of  the  term,  what  is  the  result?     Is  the 
qi3stion  decided  in  their  favour  ?     Their  proposed  translation  is 
snply  an  argument  for  their  mode  of  baptism  derived  from  the 
leaning  of  the  term.     Is  the  argument  sound  ?     Is  its  conclusion 
0  far  beyond  dispute,  that  it  may  be  incorporated  in  the  translated 
ext  of  inspiration,  and  made  a  part  of  the  true  and  infallible  word 
of  God?     Mark  the  logic.     The  Baptist  admits  that  the  word 
baptize  means  sometimes  to  put  water  on  a  part  of  the  body,  and 
then  translates  it  by  a  word  which  signifies  to  put  the  whole  body 
into  water,  and  adds  his  assertion  that  this  is  the  only  rendering 
which  the  word  will  bear  !     We  hazard  nothing  by  insisting  that 
the  question  is  yet  unsettled  in  their  favour ;  that  the  argument 
against  their  doctrine  remains  in  all  its  force,  and  that  they  hold 
those  views  of  the  sense  of  that  word,  as  expressed  in  their  trans- 
lation, against  their  own  free  and  candid  concessions,  and  "  the 
almost  universal  suffrage  of  what  is  called  the  Christian  world." 

We  meet  our  brethren,  therefore,  at  this  point,  with  these  two 
dissuasives  against  their  course : 

First,  they  assume  the  point  which  they  have  failed  to  prove. 
Their  sole  reason  for  changing  the  name  of  baptism  is  that  their 
interpretation  of  the  name  has  been  called  in  question ;  and  they 
must  give  it  a  new  name  because  they  cannot  silence  the  objec- 
tions to  their  peculiar  use  of  the  old.  If  baptize  had  only  one 
meaning  and  that  were  undisputed,  the  word  would  suit  them  still. 
But  they  find  their  opinion  disputed,  refuse  to  argue  the  point  any 
longer,  and  proceed  to  cut  the  Gordian  knot  which  they  could  not 
untie.  They  leave  us  in  full  and  quiet  possession  of  all  the  ground 
we  fought  for,  and  quit  the  field  in  a  manner  not  clearly  compa- 
tible with  dignity  and  self-respect.  They  go  on  to  translate  the 
word  according  to  their  views,  while  they  leave  their  recorded 
testimony  in  favour  of  ours.  For  let  it  be  remembered  that  the 
Paedobaptist  doctrine  on  the  philological  point  is  simply  that  the 
word  will  not,  in  all  cases,  bear  their  sense.  We  do  not  insist  that 
it  means  only  to  sprinkle.  We  do  not  contend  that  baptism  may 
not  be  performed  by  immersion  ;  but  that  it  is  not  confined,  by  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  to  immersion.  This  is  the  point  in  contro- 
versy ;  and  our  charge  against  our  brethren  is,  that  they  first  con- 
cede this  point,  and  then  assume  the  opposite. 

Second,  they  propose  to  translate  the  Bible  on  principles  which 
their  own  reasonings  do  not  uphold.  It  is  certainly  incumbent  on 
the  Baptist  to  prove,  or,  at  least,  to  believe  himself,  that  baptize 
signifies  only  innmerse,  and  neither  more  nor  less,  before  he  pro- 
ceeds to  put  it,  in  every  instance,  out  of  the  Bible,  and  put  immerse 
in  its  place.  But  this  he  neither  proves  to  others,  nor  believes 
himself  We  hear  him  say,  « that  immerse,  dip,  plunge,  no  one 
of  those,  in  the  English  language,  nor  any  words  corresponding  to 


BAPTIST   TRANSLATION    OP   THE    BIBLE.  489 

them  in  other  languages,  can  be  a  full  equivalent  for  baptize." 
The  most  he  claims  is  that  these  words  express  the  •primary^  ori- 
ginal^ ordinary,  general  sense  of  the  term.  What  then  is  he  to 
do  ?  The  word  must  be  translated,  but  how  ?  On  his  own  prin- 
ciples, what  but  a  circumlocution  will  represent  its  meaning  fairly. 
He  must  have  a  "  faithful  version  "  of  the  word ;  but  he  has  no 
terms  to  make  it  of,  as  he  himself  admits,  and  still  he  persists  in 
translating  the  word,  though  he  strips  it,  in  the  process,  of  a  portion 
of  its  sacred  import. 

After  all,  when  we  consider  that  baptize  has  been  appropriated, 
and  that  any  other  word  would  soon  become  equally  so,  the  change 
of  terms  seems  unnecessary  and  unavailing ; — unnecessary,  because 
this  term  may  serve  the  Baptist  as  well  as  any  other ;  unavailing, 
because  the  Paedobaptist  can  serve  himself  as  well  with  any 
other  as  with  this.  What  forbids  the  Baptises  associating  invaria- 
bly with  the  word  baptize  the  sense  which  he  thinks  it  ought  exclu- 
sively to  retain  ?  And  suppose  the  change  effected,  in  all  the 
versions  of  every  sect,  would  not  the  new  name  convey  the  same 
idea  to  the  Paedobaptist  mind  as  the  old  ?  The  name  would  not 
define  the  rite,  but  the  rite  the  name.  Immerse,  were  that  the  sub- 
stitute, would  be  taken  from  the  common  vocabulary,  and  inserted 
on  the  list  of  theological  terms.  No  one  would  go  to  the  classical 
dictionary  to  find  its  technical  meaning.  We  should  go  to  theolo- 
gical books  for  that ;  and  when  the  Baptist  has  chosen  his  terms, 
the  world  will  employ  them  as  they  do  the  terms  now  in  use.  If 
baptize  means  immerse,  then  immerse  means  baptize,  and  both  will 
unchangeably  denote  the  ceremony  "  of  washing  with  water  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost."  We  should  no  more 
speak  of  the  Christian  immersion  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  immer- 
sion, than  we  now  speak  of  a  baptism  of  hands  and  garments  that 
are  cleansed  by  washing,  or  of  a  pastor  of  sheep  and  cattle. 

We  tender  to  our  brethren  the  fraternal  admonition,  that  they 
will  never  satisfy  any  large  portion  of  the  intelligent  Christian 
world  with  their  reasons  for  shaping  a  religious  ceremony,  having 
its  specific  character  and  design,  by  the  original  and  general  sense 
of  the  term  chosen  to  denote  it.  We  wonder  that  such  signal  and 
solemn  stress  should  have  been  laid  on  the  sense  of  this  word,  as 
determining  the  form  of  the  institution  of  which  it  is  the  name.  How 
has  it  happened  that  this  zeal  for  circumstantials  has  not  seized  on  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  wrought  the  form  and  time  and  circumstances 
of  its  observance  into  minute  conformity  to  this  name  of  the  insti- 
tution ?  Do  our  brethren  test  the  validity  of  their  eldership  by 
the  -primary  and  general  signification  of  the  name  ?  How  do  they 
render  ttoj^ijk  in  their  new  translation  so  as  to  retain  exclusively 
the  original  and  primary  sense  of  the  word  ?  And  tirtaKoros  and 
itpeaffvrepos  ?  How  do  they  translate  certain  names  of  weights  and 
measures  ?  "  No  man  iighteth  a  candle  and  putteth  it  under  a 
bushel."  Have  \vxvos  and  iio6ios  precise  synonymes  in  Birmese  ?  If 
not,  how  can  they  translate  them  ?     We  understand  the  Baptist 


490  BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

translators  have  borrowed  many  words  from  various  languages  to 
express  their  scriptural  ideas  in  the  Birman  language  ;  and  parti- 
cularly, that  they  have  transferred  the  word  tvayytXiov  entire  into 
their  version  !  !  The  Greeks  translate  i^?a  by  weptVe/xj/oj ;  the  Latins 
by  circumcisio  ;  we,  by  circumcision  ;  all  the  translations  convey- 
ing, in  the  primary  senses,  ideas  which  have  no  connexion  with 
the  Hebrew  original.  Perhaps  the  Baptist  translators,  in  their 
"  faithfulness,"  are  giving  us  the  broad  Birmese  and  English  of  the 
rite,  and  making  the  name  a  literal  definition  of  the  ceremony. 
What  but  this  are  they  proposing  to  do  in  relation  to  baptism  ? 
Why,  in  that  particular  instance,  do  they  cling  with  such  pertina- 
city to  a  particular  and  primary  sense  of  the  word  ?  Is  baptizing 
a  person  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  and 
with  sole  reference  to  a  spiritual  cleansing,  synonymous  with  sink- 
ing a  stone  in  the  pool,  or  a  ship  in  the  sea,  or  plunging  one's  self, 
for  health,  pleasure,  or  personal  cleanliness,  into  a  bath  ?  Does 
the  resemblance  require  both  to  be  called  by  the  same  name  ?  and 
must  the  name  express,  in  either  application,  only  those  ideas  which 
are  common  to  both  ?  What  would  such  principles  make  of  the 
church,  its  pastors,  its  preaching  and  its  other  sacrament  ?  Will 
the  brethren  tell  us  how,  in  their  view,  the  Lord's  Supper  can  be 
valid,  observed  in  the  morning  or  any  time  of  day  before  dinner ; 
and  with  the  least  assignable  quantity  of  the  elements,  instead  of 
the  full  meal  which  the  name  implies  1  Our  respected  brethren 
must  perceive  some  weight  in  the  consideration  that  they  are 
translating  the  Bible  on  principles  which  they  themselves  acknow- 
ledge to  have  but  a  partial  support ;  and  to  proceed  on  such 
grounds  to  alter  the  received  version  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  or  to 
disturb  the  long  settled  agreement  of  protestant  Christendom  in 
the  principles  of  translation,  would  be  an  act  of  presumption,  the 
discredit  of  which  they  must  be  reluctant  to  incur. 

Having  extended  our  remarks  on  this  branch  of  our  subject  to 
an  unexpected  length,  we  have  but  small  space  for  observations 
on  the  sectarian  policy  of  the  Baptist  translation. 

Our  remarks  on  this  point  are  prompted  by  sincere  desire  for 
the  prosperity  of  that  portion  of  the  Baptist  denomination  who 
hold  what  we  receive  as  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 
We  seek  their  unity,  purity,  and  success.  We  make  common 
cause  with  them,  and  should  feel  their  adversity  to  be  our  own 
affliction. 

The  recent  movements  of  the  Baptists  in  this  matter  threaten 
the  brethren  concerned  in  them  with  mutual  alienation  and  divi- 
sion. They  are  now  under  one  of  the  very  common  temptations 
which  beset  active  and  conscientious  Christians.  They  propose  a 
measure  tending  to  separate,  not  the  good  from  the  bad,  the  pure 
and  the  living  from  the  worldly  and  dead  ;  but  brethren  of  equal 
purity  and  conscientiousness  from  one  another.  The  measure,  in 
its  present  shape,  had  its  origin  in  the  Baptist  minority  of  the 
board  of*  managers  of  the  American  Bible  Society.     Some  of  these 


BAPTIST   TRANSLATION    OP   THE    BIBLE.  491 

members  of  the  board  seem  to  have  encouraged  the  Baptist  mis- 
sionaries abroad  to  change  the  Biblical  terms  relating  to  baptism, 
with  the  promise  that  their  friends  in  this  country  would  stand  by 
them.  The  translations  made  thus  in  advance  of  the  general 
action  of  the  American  Baptists  in  relation  to  them,  presented  a 
strong  and  insinuating  appeal  to  the  denomination  for  vindication 
and  patronage  :  and  the  leaders  in  the  board,  from  whom  the  mis- 
sionaries seek  counsel  and  direction,  were  fully  committed  in  their 
favour.  Many  copies  of  the  New  Testament  had  been  printed. 
The  translations  had  cost  great  labour,  and  the  preparations  for 
prirting  them  great  expense.  It  was  not,  therefore,  in  its  naked 
form  that  the  question  of  a  Baptist  translation  came  up,  but  in  the 
insidious  garb  of  a  proposition  to  support  translations  already  in 
existence,  and  to  sanction  the  arduous  and  self-denying  labour 
which  their  devoted  missionaries  had  already  performed.  A  great 
work  had  been  done,  and  the  question  before  the  people  was,  sustain, 
or  not  sustain.  The  zealous  response  of  the  Baptists  throughout  the 
land  to  this  proposition,  expressed  only  the  instinctive  repugnance 
of  human  nature  to  anything  like  retraction.  The  translations 
must  go,  or  the  mortified  missionaries  and  their  friends  must  retrace 
their  steps  and  return  to  the  old  ways.  A  part  of  the  brethren 
saw  and  contemplated  the  scheme-  of  translation,  apart  from  its 
disguise ;  and  maintained  the  caution  which  is  the  parent  of  safety. 
Another  part  were  strenuous  to  prosecute  and  finish  what  they 
had  begun.  We  see,  then,  the  deliberate  and  vigilant  wisdom  of 
one  party  pausing  before  the  immovable  objections  to  a  sectarian 
version  of  the  holy  Scriptures  in  any  language  ;  and  the  pledged, 
impassioned  zeal  of  the  other,  pressing  with  more  success  than 
consideration  towards  its  mark.  The  tendency  of  such  a  state 
of  things  towards  a  final  division  is  inevitable.  That  the  whole 
power  of  the  denomination  will  go  for  the  translations  we  have 
notorious  reason  to  doubt ;  that  the  brethren  should  relinquish  their 
purpose,  though  by  no  means  impossible,  is  opposed  by  the  pre- 
ference of  human  nature  for  its  own  way  ;  and  hence  we  perceive 
causes  at  work  here,  more  powerful  than  have  sufficed  in  other 
cases,  to  rend  the  bonds  of  brotherhood,  and  alienate  those  who 
once  were,  and  ought  ever  to  be  friends. 

The  serious  bearing  of  a  sound  economy  upon  the  project  is 
worthy  of  consideration.  Whether  regarded  in  their  particular 
circumstances  as  a  sect,  or  in  their  office  as  stewards  of  the  Lord 
in  common  with  all  the  churches,  they  have  no  means  to  squander. 
As  a  denomination,  they  have  peculiar  reason  to  husband  their 
resources.  The  number  of  their  missionaries  in  the  field,  and  the 
expense  of  sustaining  them,  bear  a  larger  proportion  to  their 
available  means  than  any  other  denomination  in  the  land.  They 
have  peculiar  need  of  an  educated  ministry,  but  no  endowed  insti- 
tutions to  assist  in  creating  one.  Their  zeal  for  a  new  enterprise 
is  gathering  upon  their  Bible  society  an  amount  of  patronage 
which  must  diminish  their  appropriations  to  other  objects ;  and 


492 


BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


even  should  they  sustain  their  other  institutions  with  undiminished 
HberaHty,  they  owe  it  to  themselves,  as  a  sect,  to  bestow  their 
means  on  objects  more  appropriately  Baptist.  The  work  of  Bible 
translation  and  distribution  will  be  an  exhausting  process ;  the 
same  amount  of  work  done  must  cost  them  more,  and  avail  them 
in  the  end  less,  than  if  done  by  the  American  Bible  Society. 

By  a  Baptist  version  of  the  Scriptures  they  will  create  a  new 
distinction  between  them  and  their  brethren,  which  will  be  greatly 
to  their  own  disadvantage.  When  two  sects  of  professed  Chris- 
tians cease  to  acknowledge  a  common  standard  of  appeal  in 
religious  controversy,  they  have  nothing  in  common ;  their  fra- 
ternal interest  in  each  other  loses  its  foundation,  and  the  last  cord 
that  held  them  in  mutual  fellowship  is  broken.  This  remark  has 
full  illustration  in  the  case  of  Catholics  and  Protestants.  Now 
after  long  acquiescence  in  the  received  translation  of  the  Bible, 
the  benefits  of  which  they  have  shared  in  a  measure  which  them- 
selves .  acknowledge  to  be  fully  equal  to  that  of  their  brethren,  the 
Baptists  raise  complaints  against  the  common  version,  and  put 
forth  a  version  of  their  own.  The  reproach  of  this  fundamental 
disagreement  will,  in  all  candid  views,  attach  to  the  instigators  of 
it.  The  rupture  will  require  a  stronger  apology  to  justify  it  before 
the  world,  not  to  say  before  God  ; — stronger  than  they  have  yet 
presented,  or  we  can  invent  in  their  behe^lf.  Either  the  substituted 
version  is  fully  equivalent  to  the  one  displaced,  or  it  is  not.  If  it 
is,  why  was  the  change  necessary,  if  not,  how  is  it  justifiable  ? 
With  no  pertinent  and  conclusive  answer  to  this  natural  appeal, 
our  brethren  will  stand  apart  from  their  fellow  believers,  in  a 
spirit  and  position,  which  may  be  more  easily  accounted  for  by 
the  infirmities  of  our  fallen  nature,  than  vindicated  by  the  dictates 
of  truth  and  enlightened  conscience. 

We  respectfully  appeal  to  our  Baptist  brethren,  whether  the 
spirit  and  the  occasion  of  their  rupture  with  the  American  Bible 
Society  be  such  as,  in  their  own  view,  ought  to  command  the 
approbation  of  the  Christian  world.  That  institution  was  not 
formed  on  a  compromise  of  religious  opinions.  No  man  was 
required  to  renounce  his  peculiar  views  of  truth  as  a  condition  of 
membership.  There  was  a  fair  understanding  that  the  different 
denominations  composing  the  society  should  stand  on  common 
ground  in  regard  to  the  copies  of  the  Scriptures  they  would 
circulate.  Hence  they  excluded  "  note  and  comment,"  and  in  the 
same  spirit,  confined  themselves  either  to  the  common  English 
version,  or  to  such  versions  as  conform  to  that  in  the  principles  of 
their  translation,  "  at  least  so  far  as  that  all  the  religious  denomina- 
tions represented  in  the  society  can  consistently  use  and  circulate 
said  versions  in  their  several  schools  and  communities."  And  what 
other  ground  could  such  an  institution  assume?  We  press  this  ques- 
tion upon  brethren,  and  seriously  demand  an  answer.  Yet  in  the 
face  of  this  vital  principle  of  the  society,  our  Baptist  friends  obtrude 
the  proposal  that  their  sectarian  Bible  be  taken  up  and  circulated 


BAPTIST   TRANSLATION    OP    THE    BIBLE.  493 

by  the  society  at  the  expense,  not  of  the  money  of  the  institution 
merely,  which  were  a  small  matter,  but  of  the  cherished  and  known 
preferences  of  their  brethren  of  the  other  persuasions !       Hav- 
ing made  a  version  differing,  in  their  own  estimation,  as  widely 
from  the  common  version,  as  the   Baptist  denomination  differs 
from  the  others,  they  demand  for  it  the  patronage  of  all  the  other 
denominations  concerned  in  the  society.     And  they  reproach  their 
brethren  with   sectarianism   for   withholding   it  1      The   Baptist 
minority  in  the  board  of  the  American  Bible  Society,  in  their  pro- 
test, gravely  charge  the  society^s  versions  with  ^'purposely  withhold- 
ing the  truth  by  non-translation  or  ambiguous  terms,  for  the  sake 
of  accommodating  Paedobaptists ;"  and  they  charge  the   socie- 
ty's measure  with  '*  withholding  from  the  heathen  the  word  of  Hfe 
and  suffering  them  to  hasten  to  the  retributions  of  eternity,  with- 
out the  knowledge  of  God  and  the  way  of  salvation,  simply  because 
the  volume  it  is  proposed  to  give,  contains  the  translation  of  a 
single  term  to  which  only  Paedobaptists  object," — in  other  and 
proper  words,  is  a  Baptist  bible.     To  which  only  Paedobaptists 
object !     A  trifling  objection  truly  ;  made  by  a  proportion  of  three 
to  one  in  the  board  of  managers,  and  of  more  than  twenty  to  one 
of  all  the  patrons  of  the  institution.    And  then  the  "  withholding :" — 
A  single  Baptist  pertinaciously  thrusts  his  dogma  into  the  path  of 
twenty  conscientious  and  devoted  Bible  distributors,  and  charges 
them  with  withholding  the  word  of  life  from  the  perishing  heathen, 
because  they  prefer  not  to  distribute  his  "  note  and  comment  '*  on 
the  Bible.     When  an  intelligent  Christian  public  shall  pass  delibe- 
rate judgment  on  such  a  course  our  respected  brethren  will  not 
think  it  unreasonable,  if  they  fall  under  its  pointed  censure. 

It  may  be  as  unnecessary  as  ungrateful  to  our  brethren  to  be 
admonished  that  their  zeal  in  this  matter  has  overshot  its  mark.  If 
an  enemy  of  theirs  had  consulted  the  surest  method  of  wasting  the 
denomination  throughout  the  world,  he  could  have  chosen  no  one 
more  effectual  than  the  step  which  they,  of  their  own  accord,  are 
now  taking.  Not  content  with  explaining  the  received  text  of  the 
law  and  the  testimony  touching  their  peculiar  practice,  they  risk 
the  reproach  of  shaping  the  text  itself  to  their  views.  Such  is  the 
aspect  of  their  proceeding  before  the  Christian  world.  So  it  will 
be  understood  and  received.  They  resolve  to  have  no  longer  any 
standard  of  ultimate  appeal  in  common  with  the  other  protestant 
sects,  and  making  for  themselves  a  Bible  as  peculiar  as  their  creed, 
propose  an  appeal  to  that  as  an  end  of  all  strife.  And  then  what 
have  they  gained  ?  Have  they  a  better  weapon  for  either  self- 
defence  or  conquest  ?  They  before  had  the  important  advantage, 
which  at  times  they  triumphantly  recognise,  of  a  translation  made 
by  Paedobaptists^  which,  by  its  accidental  and  undesigned  "  faith- 
fulness "  to  truth,  has  so  lively  a  Baptist  tinge,  "  that  any  reader 
whose  mind  is  not  warped  by  prepossession,  discovers  nothing  but 
immersion  for  baptism  in  the  New  Testament ;"  a  translation 
"  which  any  person,  understanding  its  language,  and  ignorant  of 


494  BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

its  origin,  would  presume  to  have  been  made  by  Baptists,  and 
caused  to  speak  favourably  to  their  side."*  And  v^^hat,  in  the 
name  of  the  fiercest  sectarianism,  v^^ould  they  have  more  ?  Must 
they  be  so  straight  as  to  bend  the  other  way  ?  Will  they  forego 
the  choice  advantage  of  a  Baptist  Bible  made  by  Paedobaptists, 
for  the  low  pleasure  of  making  one  of  their  own  ?  We  would 
cordially  bid  them  God  speed  in  their  enterprise,  but  for  the  pain- 
ful persuasion  that  they  war  against  their  own  life,  and  the  more 
they  succeed,  the  more  they  will  fail. 

We  are  aware  that  most  of  our  remarks  on  the  sectarian  policy 
of  our  brethren  in  their  late  proceedings  appeal  to  a  standard  for 
which  they  feel,  perhaps,  little  respect ; — the  standard  of  the 
enlightened  sentiment  of  the  Christian  public  ;  and  we  may  be  met 
with  the  reply,  "  Whether  it  be  right  in  the  sight  of  God  to  hear- 
ken unto  you  more  than  unto  God,  judge  ye."  But  those  of  our 
brethren  who  have  reached  the  point  where  they  presume  on  the 
exclusive  patronage  of  the  Head  of  the  church,  despise  the  appro- 
bation and  courtesies  of  the  Christian  brotherhood,  and  feel  them- 
selves above  fraternal  counsels,  are  past  recovery ;  and  their 
future  course  is  but  too  faithfully  traced  in  the  history  of  fanati- 
cism in  other  days.  We  hope  better  things  of  them,  though  we 
thus  speak.  Not  very  remote  from  the  line  of  history  through 
which  the. Baptists  trace  their  origin,  stand  the  records  of  instruc- 
tive events,  bearing  strong  resemblance  to  things  which  seem  now 
to  be  coming  to  pass.  The  light  of  the  past  sometimes  reveals 
the  future.  In  some  awakening  enterprise  of  a  large  and  prosper- 
ous sect,  the  most  ardent  members  go  too  fast  and  too  far  for  the 
rest,  and  the  bonds  of  union  in  the  body  become  tensely  drawn. 
All  parties,  being  conscientiously  committed,  must  hold  their 
ground ;  and  after  long  commotion,  there  comes  forth  from  the 
agitated  mass  a  select  and  close  communion  of  the  reformed. 
Upon  its  straitened  faith,  its  expurgated  ceremonies,  or  perhaps  its 
"  faithful  version "  the  little  band  concentrates  and  exhausts  its 
burning  zeal ;  until,  through  an  exclusive  and  impassioned  bigotry 
for  its  distinctive  article,  it  lets  go  the  essential  truth  of  the  gospel 
and  dies.  The  whole  field  of  ecclesiastical  history  is  strewed  with 
the  ashes  of  such  dead,  and  no  part  more  thickly  than  the  quarter 
occupied  by  the  Baptist  denomination. 

Our  brethren  will  doubtless  notice  that  we  join  the  project  of  an 
English  version  with  that  of  a  translation  for  Birmah.  We  have 
taken  them  together,  because  they  cannot,  either  in  theory  or  prac- 
tice, be  kept  apart.  If  the  Baptists  can  consent  to  use  the  common 
English  version  in  this  country,  while  they  make  such  conscientious 
ado  about  the  foreign  versions  corresponding  to  that  in  the  princi- 
ples of  their  translation,  we  shall  be  forced  to  entertain  a  disrespect 
for  their  consistency  which  we  cannot  now  think  them  capable  of 
deserving.     The  objections  against  a  Baptist  version  in  English  lie 

•  Christian  Review,  No.  5,  pp.  38,  3a. 


BAPTIST  TRANSLATION  OF  THE   BIBLE.  495 

with  all  their  force  against  a  Baptist  version  in  Birmese.  We  hold 
that  the  world,  to  use  a  homely  simile,  is  a  free  country.  Do  the 
brethren  dream  that,  of  all  the  powerful  denominations  of  Christen- 
dom, none  but  the  Baptists  are  to  engage  in  giving  the  Bible 
to  the  "  four  hundred  millions"  whom  they  so  modestly  call  their 
proper  beneficiaries  ?  And  when  two  or  more  versions  come  out 
in  Birmah  or  in  China,  what  will  hinder  their  being  even  far  more 
mischievous  than  conflicting  translations  would  be  here  ? 

To  our  own  minds,  then,  the  points  embraced  under  this  head 
seem  abundantly  clear:  The  Baptists  consider  themselves  as  now 
entering  upon  the  work  of  giving  a  Baptist  Bible  to  all  the  world ; 
and  in  this  work  is,  of  course,  embraced  the  project  of  an  altered 
version  in  English ;  they  are  prompted  to  this  step  solely  by  their 
zeal  for  the  form  of  one  of  the  external  rites  of  Christianity  ;  they 
beg  the  whole  philological  question,  and  incur  irreparable  injury  to 
themselves. 

The  few  remaining  thoughts  we  have  to  offer  are  suggested 
by  the  presumption  of  our  brethren  on  the  speedy  prevalence  of 
Baptist  principles  and  practice  throughout  the  world. 

We  judge  this  presumption  to  be  general  among  them  from  such 
demonstrations  as  these  :  They  speak  of  their  obligation  and  pur- 
pose to  give  the  Holy  Scriptures  "  faithfully  translated"  to  all  the 
world.  They  express  entire  confidence  that  all  Christians  will 
"  see  eye  to  eye"  on  the  subject  of  baptism.     Their  measures  are 

f)rofessedly  prospective  of  the  rapid  progress  and  universal  preva- 
ence  of  Baptist  influence  in  both  Christian  and  pagan  lands,  and 
they  speak  of  preparing  a  Bible  for  the  "  four  hundred  millions," 
as  though  the  whole  work  rested,  under  God,  on  Baptist  shoulders. 
No  one  can  read  the  declarations  of  their  zeal  and  purposes,  with- 
out perceiving  the  deep  tinge  which  this  presumption  gives  to  all 
their  expectations  of  the  progress  of  religion. 

This  circumstance,  above  all  others,  proves  the  strength  and 
solemnity  of  their  denominational  partialities,  and  the  remarkable 
ascendency  of  sectarian  preferences  over  the  Baptist  mind.  Papists 
and  Baptists  are,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  only  existing  sects  who 
arrogate  for  their  peculiar  dogmas  the  dignities  and  destinies  of 
"  the  truth  ;"  and  who  mean,  when  they  speak  of  the  triumph  of 
the  truth,  the  conversion  of  all  the  world  to  their  views.  We  are 
struck  with  the  deep  coloured  ground  work  of  the  following  picture 
from  the  report  of  the  board  of  managers  of  the  American  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society,  pp.  50,  51.  "  Your  board  of  managers  are 
deeply  afflicted  when  they  reflect,  that  although  the  Bible  and  parts 

of  the  Bible  have  been  faithfully  translated ; and  every 

facility  is  possessed  to  distribute  thousands  of  copies  every  year 
among  the  inhabitants  of  India  ; and  although  it  is  indis- 
putable that  Baptist  missionaries  have  translated  the  Bible  into  the 
languages  spoken  by  more  than  one  half  the  nations  of  the  earth,* 

*  Do  not  Paedobaptists  dispute  the  faithfulness  of  the  translations,  and  do  not  the 
Baptists'  own  concessions  dispute  it  ? 


'496  BAPTIST   TRANSLATION   OF   THE   BIBLE. 

and  the  faithfulness  of  their  versions  has  never  been  disputed ; 
yet  the  Calcutta,  the  British  and  Foreign,  and  the  American  Bible 
Societies  have  peremptorily  refused  to  aid  the  Baptists  in  giving  to 
those  benighted  nations  the  unadulterated  revelation  of  the  eternal 
God ;  v^^ithout  which,  as  every  reflecting  mind  must  be  aware, 
thousands  will  be  annually  sacrificed  upon  the  altars  of  idolatry, 
and  sink  for  ever  to  the  abodes  of  despair." 

The  unadulterated  revelation  of  the  eternal  God  is  the  Baptist 
Bible.  Do  the  brethren  mean  to  say  that  versions  corresponding 
to  the  received  English  translation  cannot  enlighten  those  benight- 
ed nations  ?  Probably  not,  upon  reflection  ;  but  we  givQ  their  words. 
Perhaps  they  mean  to  convey  the  idea  that  theirs  are  the  only 
translations  existing  in  the  languages  spoken  by  those  nations, 
and  the  alternative  is,  to  give  them  a  Baptist  translation,  or  leave 
them  to  perish.  But  who  created  this  alternative  ?  Suppose  the 
converse  of  the  case  they  state.  The  Paedobaptist  majorities 
in  those  societies  have  conscientious  objections  against  circulating, 
by  their  own  agency,  the  peculiar  views  of  the  Baptists  ;  even 
though  the  vehicle  for  circulating  those  opinions  were  to  be  what 
they  call  literal  and  faithful  versions  of  the  Bible.  If  now  in  the 
providence  of  God  the  Baptists  stand  in  the  Thermopylae  of  those 
"  four  hundred  millions"  of  heathen,  with  their  translations  of  the 
Bible,  and  refuse  to  give  us  access  except  on  the  submission  of  our 
consciences  to  theirs,  who  are  they  that  deprive  the  heathen  of  the 
Word  of  God ;  that  stand  in  the  gate  of  the  vineyard  neither 
entering  in  themselves,  nor  suffering  those  who  were  entering  to 
go  in  ?  If  then  through  the  delay  occasioned  by  this  controversy, 
thousands  of  heathen  should  perish  in  darkness,  would  not  all 
candour  assign,  at  least,  a  moiety  of  the  blame  to  our  brethren 
who  so  freely  roll  the  whole  upon  others  ? 

Further :  "  Upon  their  (these  societies')  conduct  in  this  case,  we 
pause  not  now  to  animadvert.  To  their  own  master  they  must 
stand  or  fall,  in  that  day  when  every  man  shall  be  judged 
according  to  his  works.  *Some  years  since,'  say  the  Baptist 
missionaries  in  Bengal,  *  three  of  the  Paedobaptist  brethren, 
unknown  to  us,  though  on  the  most  friendly  terms  with  us,  wrote 
to  the  Bible  Society  in  England,  requesting  them  not  to  give 
assistance  to  any  Indian  versions  in  which  the  word  '  baptize^  was 
translated  '  immerse.^     None  of   these    men    lived    to  see  the 

REPLY    TO    THEIR    APPLICATION." 

Solemn  warning  !  The  deed  and  the  curse  of  Korah  !  And 
not  a  hair  of  the  head  of  a  Baptist  hurt  by  the  visitation ! 
How  evident  and  awful  a  judgment,  sent  on  men  who  sought 
to  keep  back  a  part  of  the  Word  of  God  from  the  perishing 
heathen  !  It  is  only  here  and  there,  indeed,  that  this  large  vein 
of  Baptist  fanaticism  comes  so  near  the  surface ;  but  such  lan- 
guage shows  that  it  belongs  to  the  system.  The  italics  and 
capitals  above  given  are  all  their  own. 

"  The  board   of  managers  are  satisfied  that  the  providence  of 


BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE.  497 

God  has  made  it  the  duty  of  Baptists  to  give  to  the  whole  world  a 
faithful  translation  of  the  whole  Bible ;  and  that,  as  a  denomina- 
tion, we  cannot  dechne  this  labour  of  love,  and  yet  remain  guiltless. 
In  closing  their  report,  the  board  of  the  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society  .  .  .  desire  to  feel,  that  if  to  promote  the  glory 
of  God  and  the  salvation  of  men,  be  indeed  the  highest  aim  and 
paramount  duty  of  every  Christian,  then  does  no  common  responsi- 
bility devolve  on  this  society." 

No  responsibility,  that  is  to  say,  which  is  common  to  all  denomi- 
nations ;  but  a  peculiar  one  devolved,  by  the  providence  of  God, 
upon  the  Baptists  to  give  the  whole  world  a  faithful  translation  of 
the  whole  Bible.  In  other  words,  the  Baptists  are  under  a  most 
awful  responsibility  to  give  the  whole  world  the  Baptist  meaning 

of  ffaiTTi^o}, 

"  Let  every  talent  be  brought  into  solemn  requisition,  and  let  us 
resolve,  in  the  strength  of  the  Lord,  never  to  cease  from  our  work, 
until  all  nations  read  in  their  own  tongue,  the  wonderful  works  of 
God.**  That  is,  until  all  nations  shall  have  translations  in  which 
the  name  of  baptism  shall  not  be  a  foreign  word.  The  world 
will  never  be  enlightened  until  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is 
called  no  longer  in  the  Bible  by  a  Greek  name.  This  is  the 
evident  drift  of  these  quotations.  We  might  quote  from  numerous 
writers  and  speakers  to  the  same  effect ;  but  the  specimens  given 
above  will  suffice. 

Now  that  our  Baptist  brethren,  as  a  denomination,  are  to  be  the 
sole  instrument  of  these  beneficent  achievements,  is  not  to  us  a 
very  clear  and  direct  matter  of  divine  revelation.  Their  assurance 
must  rest  largely  on  the  probable  tendency  and  progress  of  reli- 
gious events  in  the  world  ;  and  we  proffer  to  them  a  few  of  the 
suggestions  of  history,  as  hints  of  Divine  Providence  on  this  sub- 
ject. 

One  point  in  history  on  which  the  Baptists  vehemently  insist,  is 
that  the  apostles  and  first  Christians  were  Baptists  to  a  man.  Some 
assert  with  strong  assurance,  that  in  the  days  of  Paul,  the  Baptists 
were  the  sect  everywhere  spoken  against,  as  the  steadfast  friends  of 
the  voluntary  principle,  in  whatever  pertains  to  religion.*  There 
was  an  early  division  of  Christians  into  different  and  contending  sects, 
the  heads  of  which  appear  to  have  been  strenuous  on  some  points 
connected  with  baptism.f  But  we  presume  our  brethren  do  not 
assign  to  their  primitive  ancestry  a  place  among  those  who  received . 
Paul's  genuine  Paedobaptist  rebuke  on  that  occasion,  and  who 
were  admonished  that  circumstantial  differences  about  baptism, 
was  no  good  ground  of  mutual  dissension.  Nothing  is  heard  of 
these  Baptist  divisions,  however,  from  that  time  to  the  reformation. 
The  line  of  their  history  soon  after  its  commencement  runs  under 
ground,  as  the  river  Jordan,  in  whose  waters  those  first  Baptists 

*  See  speech  of  Rev.  S.  H.  Cone,  at  the  opening  of  business  in  the  American  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society,  1837. 
t  1  Cor.  i  ,  11-17, 

32 


498  BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

were  made,  is  said  to  do  near  its  source.  There  are  hints,  indeed, 
of  immersion  during  the  dark  ages,  as  in  one  instance,  when  the 
pope  led  a  splendid  procession  at  a  baptismal  celebration  chanting 
the  words,  "  As  the  hart  panteth  for  the  water  brooks ;"  on  which 
occasion  several  children  were  immersed  three  times  each.*  On 
the  emersion  of  their  history  into  public  view  at  the  reformation, 
behold  almost  the  whole  nominal  Christian  world  had  imbibed  the 
Paedobaptist  errors ;  and  of  those  who  bore  the  Baptist  name,  or 
its  cognate  Anabaptist,  there  were  at  least  six  sorts  as  different 
from  each  other  as  can  well  be  imagined.  One  sort  placed  the 
essence  of  baptism  in  the  virtue  of  the  person  baptized  ;  a  second, 
in  the  form  of  words ;  a  third,  in  the  virtue  of  the  administrator  ; 
a  fourth,  in  the  consent  of  the  subject ;  a  fifth,  in  dipping  ;  and  a 
sixth,  in  the  profession  of  faith  and  dipping  united. f  This  last 
division  of  the  Anabaptists  were  the  true  Baptists,  from  whom 
sprang  all  the  subsequent  modifications  of  the  sect.J  From  that 
time  to  the  present,  while  the  Baptists  have  had  a  respectable 
representation  in  the  aggregate  piety  of  the  Christian  church,  the 
modifications  of  the  sect  have  multiplied  indefinitely.  Indeed  the 
question  of  baptism  has  thrown  the  Christian  world  into  two  divi- 
sions, in  both  which  are  to  be  found  corresponding  diversities  of 
doctrine  and  order  almost  without  end.  It  sounds  strangely  there- 
fore to  our  ears,  to  hear  Baptists,  as  such,  assume  to  be  the  exclu- 
sive proprietors  of  truth.  Who  are  the  Baptists  ?  By  what 
comprehensive  term  can  we  describe  them  ?  What  system  of 
either  doctrine  or  practice  do  they  hold  in  common  ?  They  seem 
to  us  the  least  adapted  as  a  community  to  constitute  the  one  spirit- 
ual body,  fitly  joined  together  and  compacted  by  that  which  every 
joint  supplieth.  That  they,  as  Baptists,  are  the  true  and  only 
church  whose  destinies  are  celebrated  by  prophetic  inspiration,  and 
to  whose  doctrine  and  practice,  as  truth  advances,  all  Christendom 
is  to  conform,  our  brethren  themselves  in  the  calm  intervals  of  their 
baptistic  raptures  do  not  pretend.  The  history  of  baptism  suggests 
to  our  minds  almost  any  other  thing  as  strongly,  as  the  idea  of 
pecuilar  purity  of  Christian  principle  connected  with  immersion. 
And  yet  this  very  connexion  of  immersion  with  truth  and  holiness 
is  the  basis  of  Baptist  exultation  and  confidence.  Their  sanguine 
expectations  of  the  future  spread  of  Baptist  principles  would  lead 
any  one,  who  did  not  know  better,  to  suppose  that  every  candid 
and  humble  inquirer  after  truth  and  duty  found  the  binding  neces- 
sity of  immersion  too  obvious  to  be  mistaken  ;  that  every  degree 
of  spiritual  improvement  in  the  church  was  accompanied  with  a 
scrupulous  submission  to  dipping  ;  that  in  every  revival  of  religion, 
each  sweep  of  the  gospel  net  drew  its  entire  contents  into  the 
water  ;  and  that  all  the  brightest  rays  of  biblical  learning  and 
sound   philology  converged  towards   the  Baptist  contraction  of 


*  Benedict's  History  of  Baptists,  i.,  69.    Robinson's  History  of  Baptism,  p. 
t  Robinson's  Hist.  Bap.,  p.  453. 
X  Benedict,!., 94. 


65. 


BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


49^ 


ffavrt^ot.  But  our  evGS  have  not  yet  discovered  such  a  tendency  of 
things  ;  and  if  our  brethren  deliberately  believe  it  exists,  their  con-' 
victions  can  have  little  to  do  with  either  argument  or  fact. 

In  connexion  with  this  presumption  of  our  brethren  that  their 
principles  are  to  be  the  principles  of  Christendom,  we  cannot  but 
notice  a  similar  feature  of  their  state  of  mind  in  regard  to  other 
points.  It  would  be  matter  of  amusement,  were  it  not  a  case  of 
so  painful  exposure  to  the  danger  of  self-deception,  to  hear  our 
brethren  pronounce  so  confident  judgment  on  the  comparative 
merits  of  their  versions  of  the  Scriptures.  "Our  principle," 
exclaims  the  president  of  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society, 
"  is  the  true  one.  .  .  .  That  the  Bible  may  be  an  intelligible  guide, 
it  must  be  faithfully  translated  by  sound  philologists ,  not  by  selfish 
sectarians."  In  other  words,  it  must  be  translated  by  Baptists  ; 
par  eminence^  the  sound  philologists  of  Christendom,  the  pure, 
unbiassed,  unsectarian  sect  of  all  the  world  !  Our  brethren  must 
consider  that  the  world  will  take  these  expressions  in  their  proper 
connexion  with  the  acts  of  those  who  make  them,  and  will  not 
forget  that  the  Baptists,  while  thus  declaiming  about  the-  necessity 
of  a  sound  philology  in  translating  the  Bible,  are  making  transla- 
tions professedly  for  all  the  world. 

Since  the  preceding  part  of  this  article  was  prepared,  we  have 
received  a  paper  containing  the  resignation  of  four  Baptist  mem- 
bers of  the  board  of  managers  of  the  American  Bible  Society, 
together  with  a  brief  exposition  of  their  reasons  for  resigning  their 
places.  It  is  a  dignified  document,  and  professedly  dispassionate, 
and  will  be  good  authority  for  the  principles  it  holds  and  the  state- 
ments it  makes  in  the  name  of  the  denomination.  We  apprise 
those  brethren  that  they  fail  in  presenting  a  plausible  vindication 
of  their  course  by  complaining,  as  they  do,  that  they  have  not  stood 
on  equal  ground  with  the  other  denominations  represented  in  the 
board.  They  plead  for  indulgence  in  regard  to  their  version,  on 
the  ground  that  the  society  has  patronized  Paedobaptist  transla- 
tions, and  without  molestation  from  the  Baptists.  We  have 
good  authority  for  asserting  that  this  is  not  a  fact.  The  secretary 
of  the  American  Bible  Society  has  publicly  denied  that  the  society 
has  ever  intentionally  patronized  a  single  denominational  transla- 
tion. "  A  small  edition,"  says  the  secretary,  "  of  a  Seneca  gospel 
was  once  published,  where  ffavri^u  was  translated  to  wet  or  sprinkle. 
But  this  was  wholly  unknown  to  the  board  until  years  after  the 
work  was  issued  ;  and,  when  known,  was  disapproved  of  by  every 
member.  And  as  to  patronage  bestowed  unintentionally  on  deno- 
minational translations,  our  brethren  must  well  know  that  many 
thousands  of  dollars  had  been  appropriated  by  the  board  to  assist 
in  publishing  a  Birmese  version  of  the  Scriptures,  that  this  version 
had  been  prepared  by  Baptists  and  according  to  their  views,  while 
the  Baptist  character  of  the  translation  was  unknown  to  the  board, 
until  incidentally  revealed  to  them  by  a  letter  from  an  English  mis- 
sionary in  Calcutta."    They  have  had  their  share  then  of  uninten- 


500  BAPTIST   TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

tional  indulgence  ; — the  only  kind  of  indulgence  granted  to  any 
denomination  in  the  board.  This  part  of  their  ground  of  complaint 
is,  therefore,  imaginary. 

They  next  assert  that  the  American  Bible  Society  has  directly 
violated  its  constitution,  by  adopting  the  English  version  as  a  stan- 
dard, in  any  sense^  for  foreign  translations.     The  only  specification 
of  the  constitution  which  relates  at  all  to  their  case,  is  :  "  The  only 
copies  in  the  English  language  to  be  circulated  by  this  society, 
shall  be  of  the  version  nov^r  in  common  use."     The  constitution,  it 
seems,  says  nothing  of  the  principles  of  translation,  as  though  the 
work  of  translation  was  not  contemplated  by  the  institution.     Nor 
does  it  say  anything  of  the  character  of  foreign  translations  to  be 
adopted  and  circulated  by  the  society.     And  how  can  a  constitu- 
tion be  violated  in  a  matter  of  which  it  says  nothing?     If  the 
Baptists  began  to  co-operate  with  the  society  under  the  impression 
th>it  the  constitution  bound  the  board  to   patronize  any  particular 
foreign  translations  of  the  Scriptures,  it  was  their  unfortunate  mis- 
take.    And  it  would  better  become  them,  now  that  they   have 
learned  their  error,  to  acknowledge  the  correction,  and  go  quietly 
on  in  their  good  work.     We  wonder  at  their  great  ado  about  the 
rejection  of  their  translation.     That  board  have  no  power  to  prevent 
any  man  or  sect,  from  making  such  and  so  many  versions  of  the 
Scriptures  as  they  choose.     If  our  brethren  must  have  a  Baptist 
version,  and  must  circulate  it,  they  are  free  to  do  so.     It  is  at  their 
option  whether  to  give  their  money  to  the  Bible  Society,  for  the 
distribution  of  such  translations  as  that  institution  patronizes,  or  to 
expend  a  part  or  the  whole  of  their  means  upon  versions  of  their 
own.     It  seems  to  us  entirely  without  cause,  and  a  great  inadver- 
tence in  our   brethren,  that  they   have   given  the   board  of  the 
American  Bible  Society  so  much  embarrassment  and  pain,  for  such 
reasons.     Nothing  could  more  clearly  prove  their  utter  misappre- 
hension of  their  claims  on  the  American  Bible  Society  than  their 
comparing  the  resolutions  in  question  with  a  papal  decree.     What 
has  the  society  done,  what  can  it  do,  what  would  it  do,  to  hinder 
the  Baptists  from  circulating  their  own  Bibles,  and  in  their  own  > 
way,  provided  they  did  not  enforce  their  measures  on  their  breth- 
ten  of  other  persuasions  ?     Does  the  constitution  of  the  American 
Bible  Society  bind  the  board  to  patronize  the  Baptist  Bible  ?     How- 
then  can  the  constitution  be  violated  by  their  declining  to  do  so  ? 
But,  says  the  paper  before  us,  "  The  managers'  address,  contem- 
poraneous with  the  constitution,  contemplates  the  circulation  of  the 
Scriptures  in  foreign  lands,  in  the  received  versions  where  they 
exist,  and  in  the  most  faithful  where  they  are  required."    "  On  these 
principles,  the  Baptists  entered  most  heartily  into  the  labours  of  the 
society."     Now  first,  the  managers'  address  is  no  part  of  the  consti- 
tution of  the  society.     It  stated  what  they  deemed  themselves  com- 
petent to  do  under  the  constitution,  in  circumstances  then  existing. 
But  a  declaration  of  the  board  at  another  time,  varying  from  that,  as 
circumstances  might  require,  would  be  equally  constitutional.     If, 


BAPTIST   TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE.  501 

therefore,  the  board  had  departed  from  the  professions  of  that 
address,  it  could  not  easily  be  shown  to  be  a  direct  violation  of 
the  constitution."  But,  in  the  second  place,  have  they  departed 
in  this  case  from  even  those  professions  ?  "  Received  versions  " 
there  were  none.  Translations  were  to  be  prepared,  and  then 
*'  received  ; "  and  the  condition  which  would  hold  the  board  to  use 
them  is,  that  they  be  "  most  faithful."  But  who  is  to  judge  of  their 
faithfulness?  Do  our  brethren  deem  themselves  competent  to 
judge  in  this  momentous  matter  for  all  the  Church  ?  and  have  they 
the  face  to  demand  submission  to  their  judgment  from  all  the 
denominations  concerned  in  the  American  Bible  Society  ?  We 
were  never  before  prepared  to  suspect  it.  Do  they  "  see  them- 
selves as  others  see  them  "  in  this  case  ?  To  parry  the  force  of 
this  rebuke,  they  say,  the  faithfulness  of  their  version  has  never 
been  questioned.  It  is  questioned.  The  known  and  unchanged 
principles  of  the  Paedobaptist  world  are  a  standing  denial  of  the 
faithfulness  of  the  Baptist  version.  The  Baptists'  assertion  is  not 
correct,  that  Paedobaptists  defend  their  views  *•  on  the  ground 
of  convenience  merely,  regarding  the  mode  of  an  external  rite  as 
a  matter  of  indifference."  We  do  not  defend  our  views  on  that 
ground  merely,  nor  mainly.  We  found  our  opinions  on  what  we 
consider  just  biblical  exegesis.  The  reasonings  pursued  under  the 
philological  head  of  this  article,  are  substantially  the  basis  of  the 
Paedobaptist  views  of  the  form  of  baptism,  while  the  arguments 
from  convenience,  and  the  insignificance  of  the  form  of  an  external 
rite,  are  used  only  as  the  finish  of  the  superstructure.  The  con- 
cessions, as  our  Baptist  brethren  call  them,  of  our  greatest  scholars, 
are  no  concessions  of  the  point  in  dispute.  They  only  grant  that 
the  leading  primary  signification  of  the  word  is  what  the  Baptists 
have  it.  The  whole  question  still  remains,  whether  the  word  has 
any  other  signification ;  and,  if  it  has,  whether  it  admits  that  other 
sense  as  the  name  of  the  Christian  ordinance.  And,  pending  this 
whole  dispute,  can  they  assert  that  the  faithfulness  of  their  version 
is  unquestioned  ?  And  how  can  they  insist  on  deciding  so  delicate 
a  matter  for  the  world,  in  the  name  of  brethren  whose  opinions 
they  are  not  permitted  and  do  not  pretend  to  represent  ? 

They  say,  that  the  Bible  Society  does  not  deny  the  faithfulness 
of  the  Baptist  versions,  in  vindication  of  their  proceedings.  It  is 
true.  Like  wise  men,  they  forbear  pronouncing  judgment  directly 
on  the  opinions  of  other  men,  and  content  themselves  with  the 
ample  vindication  afforded  them  by  other  principles.  In  this  for- 
bearance, we  cordially  commend  them  to  our  brethren  as  examples. 

The  paper  above  referred  to,  by  its  grave  and  positive  air,  has 
convinced  us  more  deeply  than  ever  of  the  solemnity  of  the 
trouble  into  which  our  Baptist  brethren  have  fallen.  We  feel 
painfully  confident,  that  this  step  is  not  in  advance  of  the  previous 
state  of  the  Church  towards  the  spiritual  union  and  glory  of  the 
latter  days.  It  brings  the  Baptists  to  a  position  to  which  the 
increase  of  sacred  learning  and  zeal  in  the  different  denominations 


502  BAPTIST    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

of  Christendom,  produces  no  legitimate  approximation,  and  in 
which  the  union  and  fellowship  of  that  sect  with  others  is,  by  the 
nature  of  things,  impracticable. 

We  offer  these  plain  thoughts  to  such  of  our  brethren  as  may- 
read  them,  in  the  earnest  hope  that  their  effect,  if  they  have  any, 
may  be  only  good.      The  Baptist  views  of  baptism  we  do  not 
hesitate  to  disapprove,  and,  on  all  proper  occasions,  to  oppose.    We 
believe  those  views  to  be  formed  on  principles  which,  if  carried 
fully  out  into  all  the  departments  of  religious  belief,  would  lead 
to  fanatical  and  ruinous  error.     At  the  same  time  we  have  little 
fear  of  the  increase  of  this  spice  of  fanaticism  in  the  midst  of  so 
much  good  sense,  intelligence,  and  piety,  as  this  branch  of  the 
denomination  at  present  embraces.     We  heartily  wish  them  suc- 
cess.    Our  prayers  and  good  wishes  follow  them,  while,  even  as 
Baptists,  they  preach  Christ  crucified  to  the  heathen.     Let  them 
give  full  but  judicious  scope  to  their  principles.     Let  them  immerse 
all  Birmah  and  Hindostan,  and  make  the  Meinam  and  the  Ganges, 
to  their  converts,  what  they  believe  the  Jordan  was  to  the  primi- 
tive Christians.     We  shall  enjoy  their  success.     As  for  what  we 
deem  their  error,  it  will,  we  hope,  for  the  present,  cost  no  heathen 
his  salvation ;  and  if  ever  the  time  shall  come  when  the  spirit  of 
Paedobaptist  missions  finds  nothing  better  to  do,  than  to  urge  its 
operations  among  the  effects  of  Baptist  labours,  we  anticipate  no 
grievous  obstacle  from  the  pre-occupation  of  the  heathen  mind 
with  the  necessity  of  immersion.     Our  brethren  admit  a  natural 
and  general  apostasy  from  their  practices,  in  the  early  churches ; 
and  so  rational  and  scriptural  an  apostasy  can,  in  due  time,  be 
effected  again.     For  such  reasons  as  these,  if  for  no  others,  our 
brethren  will  acquit  us  of  the  charge  of  jealousy,  and  believe  us 
sincere  in  good  wishes  for  their  success  in  converting  and  immers* 
ing  the  heathen.     We  would  if  we  could,  dissuade  them  from  their 
translating  enterprise,  for  what  we  humbly  consider  their  own 
good,  as  well  as  for  the  cause  of  truth.     We  do  fear  that  they 
persist  at  their  cost.     The  lessons  of  history,  their  own  conces- 
sions, the  reason  and  good  sense  of  mankind,  and,  as  we  think,  the 
dictates  of  truth  are   against  them.      They  are   disguising  and 
obscuring  the  truth.     They  are  fixing  a  sectarian  spot  on  the  disk 
of  the  sun  of  righteousness,  which  will  destroy  a  part  of  his  heal- 
ing beams,  and  give  vexatious  employment  to  the  inquisitive  and 
searching  telescopes  of  pagan  infidelity  for  generations  to  come. 


ESSAY    XVII 


THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE.* 


I 


It  is  now  three  centuries  since  Miles  Coverdale  completed  his 

treat  plan  of  translating  and  publishing  the  entire  Bible  in  the 
Inglish  language.  T he-sermons  before  us  are  in  commemoration 
of  this  interesting  event.  They  are  sensible,  well  written  dis- 
courses, on  an  important  topic,  and  richly  merit  the  pains  that  have 
been  taken  to  give  them  an  extensive  circulation.  From  the  cele- 
bration of  the  first  English  version,  the  authors  have  taken  occasion 
to  direct  the  attention  of  the  public  to  the  history  and  merits  of  the  • 
one  now  in  use.  Though  very  unlike  in  their  style,  they  are 
equally  admirers  of  this  noble  monument  of  the  learning  and  piety 
of  our  fathers,  and  have  done  a  valuable  service  to  the  cause  of 
truth  by  presenting  in  such  a  forcible  manner  its  claims  to  the  con- 
fidence of  the  community.  The  ripe  scholarship  evinced  by  one 
of  these  sermons,  the  earnestness  of  the  other,  and  the  good  sense 
and  piety  of  both,  will  cause  them,  we  trust,  to  be  very  generally 
read,  and  thus  to  be  the  means  of  correcting  the  erroneous  opinions 
that  are  prevalent  to  some  extent  on  the  subject  of  which  they 
treat. 

These  sermons  are  the  more  acceptable  at  this  time,  because  a 
disposition  has  been  manifested  of  late  to  disparage  the  received 
translation  of  the  Scriptures.  From  a  contemporary  journalf  we 
learn  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Jonathan  Homer,  of  Newton,  Massachu- 
setts, has  been  some  forty  years  "  seeking  to  improve  the  text  of 
the  common  version."  We  are  not  entirely  certain  that  we  under- 
stand what  is    meant   by  this  improved  text.      In  the  ordinary 

*  Originally  published  in  1836,  in  review  of  the  following  work:  1.  "  The  English 
Bible.  A  sermon  by  the  Rev.  John  W.  Nevin,  of  the  Western  Theological  Semi- 
nary 

2.  '*  The  History,  Character,  and  Importance  of  the  received  English  version  of  the 
Bible.     A  sermon  by  the  Rev.  William  Adams,  New  York." 

t  In  the  Biblical  Repository  for  1835,  is  an  article  on  the  subject  of  English  ver- 
sions of  the  Scriptures  generally,  to  which  is  appended  an  extract  of  five  or  six 
Eages  with  the  following  notice  by  the  editor  :  "  At  the  close  of  this  article,  we  are 
appy  to  present  the  following  communication  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Jonathan  Homer, 
of  Newton,  Massachusetts,  a  gentleman  who  has  given  long  and  indefatigable  atten- 
tion to  this  subject,  and  who  is  more  intimately  acquainted  with  it  than  any  other 
individual  in  the  country." 


504 


THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE. 


acceptation  of  that  term,  a  perfect  text  of  any  author  is  one  which 
gives  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  original  aut6graph.  In  no  depart- 
ment of  letters  have  more  acuteness  and  industry  been  displayed 
than  in  the  collation,  for  this  purpose,  of  different  editions  of  ancient 
authors  sacred  and  profane.  Labours  of  this  kind  are  of  the  utmost 
importance,  especially  in  sacred  literature  ;  and  their  necessity  has 
by  no  means  ceased  since  the  introduction  of  the  art  of  printing. 
The  utmost  vigilance  cannot  prevent  some  misprints  from  creep- 
ing into  a  v^^ork  that  has  gone  through  so  many  hundred  editions 
as  our  common  version  of  the  Bible  :  and  each  mistake  of  this 
kind  is  not  confined,  as  in  transmission  by  manuscript,  to  a  single 
copy  or  to  the  few  which  may  be  transcribed  from  it,  but  is  per- 
petuated through  many  thousands  of  copies.  To  remedy  this  evil. 
Dr.  Blaney  undertook,  near  the  close  of  the  last  century,  to 
publish  a  text  which  should  be  perfectly  accurate,  and  might  be 
safely  followed,  in  all  future  editions,  as  a  standard.  This  was 
issued  in  1769,  under  the  direction  of  the  Vice-Chancellor,  and 
delegates  of  the  Clarendon  press,  at  Oxfoftl.  But,  notwithstanding 
the  extreme  care  and  labour  bestowed  upon  this  edition,  there 
have  since  been  discovered  in  it  no  less  than  one  hundred  and 
sixteen  errors,  some  of  them  of  importance.  The  most  perfect 
edition  of  our  translation  is  said  to  be  that  given  in  1806,  by  Eyre 
and  Strahan,  printers  to  His  Majesty.  But  one  erratum  has  as 
yet  been  discovered  in  it.  It  is,  therefore,  probably  the  nearest 
approximation  that  will  ever  be  made  to  an  immaculate  text. 
If,  however,  Dr.  Homer  has  authenticated  copies  of  all  the  princi- 
pal editions,  and  has  in  other  respects  the  means  and  the  abilities 
for  giving  a  more  thorough  revision  than  that  of  Dr.  Blaney,  or  a 
more  accurate  print  than  that  of  Eyre  and  Strahan,  we  would  be 
the  last  in  the  world  to  discourage  him  from  his  long  cherished 
purpose  of  "  improving  the  text  of  our  common  version." 

But  if  we  may  judge  from  the  materials  which  he  has  collected 
for  his  work,  this  is  not  precisely  what  he  contemplates.  His 
attention  has  been  directed  not  to  the  collecting  of  different  edi- 
tions of  the  common  version,  but  of  copies  of  the  different  versions. 
Those  to  which  he  has  had  access,  as  detailed  by  him  through 
several  not  very  intelligible  pages,  are  Matthew's  Bible  of  1537, 
Cranmer's  of  1539,  the  Great  Bible  of  1541,  a  New  Testament 
dated  1552,  a  Coverdale's  Tindal  of  1551  or  1561,  the  Bishops' 
Bible  of  1568,  and  the  common  version  made  in  1611.  Each  of 
these  versions,  he  says,  renders  particular  passages  correctly,  and 
in  accordance  with  the  views  of  the  great  modern  critics.  His 
plan,  therefore,  appears  to  be,  to  select  from  each  version  those 
passages  which  have  been  rightly  translated,  and  to  combine  them 
in  one  perfect  whole  which  shall  throughout  express  the  exact 
meaning  of  the  original,  and  be  in  good  English  idiom.  That  this 
is  what  he  means  by  **  seeking  to  improve  the  text  of  the  common 
version  "  will  be  manifest  from  the  concluding  paragraph  of  this 
remarkable  communication. 


THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE.  505 

"  Each  translation  has  its  special  good  renderings,  corresponding  with  the  best 
modern  critics.  The  Bible  of  1537  best  agrees  with  Gesenius,  Stuart,  and  the 
richest  portions  [those  taken  from  other  authors  ?]  of  Rosenmiiller.  It  was  exe- 
cuted by  the  three  first  Hebrew,  Greek,  and  English  scholars,  and  thorough  Ger- 
mans, ever  known  among  the  several  translators.  The  New  Testament  of 
Rogers's  Bible,  1537,  and  Coverdale's  Tindal,  1551,  and  Tindale's  first  Testament 
of  1526,  are  in  English  idiom,  and  they  are  executed  most  in  conformity  to  the 
latest  and  best  biblical  critics.  Erom  the  whole,  with  the  consulted  aid  of  more 
than  two  hundred  critical  works,  including  the  sources  of  each  translation,  I  have 
long  been  seeking  to  improve  the  text  of  the  common  version." 

What  Dr.  Homer  proposes,  then,  is  not  by  a  collation  of  the 
different  editions  of  our  translation  to  give  an  improved  text  of 
the  same,  but  by  comparing  different  translations  and  by  various 
other  "  consulted  aids,"  to  give  a  new  improved  translation.  The 
ground  for  this  bold  attempt,  as  well  as  the  manner  in  vi^hich  it  has 
been  conducted,  will  be  evident  from  the  following  passages. 

"  I  have  employed  myself,  for  a  portion  of  eleven  years,  in  collating  and  com- 
paring each  of  these  Bibles  and  Testaments  with  each  other,  with  the  originals, 
with  the  principal  versions  and  comments  and  lexicographers  of  the  three  last 
centuries,  to  the  present  date.  I  have  compared  them  also  with  the  notes  which 
I  began  to  collect,  at  the  age  of  seventeen,  from  the  books  of  Harvard  College 
library,  and  which  have  been  accumulating  for  fifty-eight  years,  following  my 
collegiate  course.  Prompted  by  the  conscientious  religious  motive  of  the  vene- 
rated, learned  and  indefatigable  German,  Bengel  (obiit,  1752),  for  about  forty  years, 
I  have  paid  critical  attention  to  various  readings  in  both  Testaments,  of  Hebrew 
and  Greek  text,  and  of  ancient  respected  versions,  and  have  examined  the  author- 
ities for  and  against  them  individually.  I  have  endeavoured,  particularly,  to 
mark  those  in  which  the  old  English  versions  and  the  orthodox,  or  those  of  James's 
creed  among  the  learned,  are  agreed,  with  few  or  no  exceptions.  I  have  found  as 
the  result,  that  the  Cranmer  Bible,  the  Bishops'  Bible,  and  the  King  James'  Bible 
were  not  independently  rendered.  .  .  .  King  James's  Bible  was  under  the 
control  of  the  very  arbitrary  King  James  and  his  Primate,  men  of  strong  preju- 
dice and  of  no  Hebrew,  if  any  Greek  learning — niere  Latin  scholars.  It  is, 
throughout,  a  version  drawn  from  other  versions  and  comments,  not  exceeding 
twenty.  It  was  carried  on  with  the  felt  early  loss  of  their  two  greatest  scholars, 
Hebrew  Professor  Lively,  and  the  President  Dr.  Reynolds.  .  .  .  These  two 
Bibles  [the  Cranmer  Bible,  and  the  Great  Bible]  differing  little  from  each  other, 
I  have  also  collated  in  all  their  parts,  and  traced  them  successively  to  their 
sources — other  than  the  original.  So  I  affirm  of  King  James's  Bible,  this  is  in  no 
part  a  new  translation  taken  directly  from  the  originals.  Those  parts  of  King 
James's  Bible  which  were  drawn  from  Luther,  were  not  taken  by  them  from  the 
German  Bible,  but  by  the  early  translators,  from  whom  they  borrowed  the  English 
version.  This  I  have  everywhere  traced  to  the  English,  French,  Latin  or  Ger- 
man versions,  which  preceded  it.  This  circumstance  I  found  proved  by  a  full 
exploring  of  the  New  Testament  in  1828.  It  has  since  been  confirmed  in  every 
book  of  the  Old  Testament." 

When  such  statements  as  these  are  sent  forth  to  the  world  as 
the  oracles  of  wisdom,  when  Dr.  Webster's  expurgated  edition  is 
recommended  to  the  public  by  the  high  authority  of  the  Faculty 
of  Yale  College,  when  even  the  Temperance  Society  cannot  be 
advocated  or  the  gospel  preached  without  such  constant  parade  of 
modern  criticism  and  such  frequent  corrections  of  the  received 
translation  as  to  shake  the  confidence  of  the  people  in  its  accuracy, 


506  THE    ENGLISH   BIBLE. 

we  hail  with  pleasure  the  publication  of  these  sermons  by  Mr. 
Nevin  and  Mr.  Adams,  and  hope  they  will  go  far  to  counteract 
what  we  cannot  but  consider  erroneous  and  dangerous  opinions. 

We  had  supposed  the  masterly  discussions  consequent  upon  the 
publication  of  the  extravagant  assertions  of  Mr.  John  Bellamy 
m  1818,*  and  the  overwhelming  array  of  evidence  internal  and 
historical  then  brought  forward  by  Whittaker,  Todd,  Lee,  Hur- 
witz,  and  Townley,  and  by  repeated  articles  in  the  London  Quar- 
terly, Antijacobin,  and  Eclectic  Reviews,  had  put  the  question  of 
the  competency  and  fidelity  of  King  James's  translators  for  ever 
at  rest.  We  are  not  a  little  surprised  then  at  such  an  unqua- 
lified impeachment  of  both  by  one  who  is  introduced  to  the  public 
as  better  qualified  to  speak  on  the  subject  than  any  other  individual 
in  the  country,  and  who  from  his  tone  and  manner  evidently 
would  not  think  the  eulogy  misplaced.  Our  translators  them- 
selves say  of  their  version  that  it  is  "translated  out  of  the 
original  tongues."  But  Dr.  Homer  has  discovered  that  this  is  a 
falsehood — that  our  version  was  drawn  from  "  sources  other  than 
the  original"  that  it  "  is  in  no  part  a  new  translation  taken  directly 
from  the  original"  He  is  so  certain  of  this  that  he  has  even  given 
the  precise  date  of  the  discovery,  "  in  a  full  exploring  of  the 
New  Testament  in  1828."  And  he  not  only  affirms  that  their 
work  was  not  as  they  say,  "  translated  out  of  the  original 
tongues,"  but  argues  that  it  is  impossible  it  should  be  so,  they 
being  "  under  the  control  of  the  very  arbitrary  James  and  his 
Primate,  men  of  strong  prejudice,  and  of  no  Hebrew,  if  any  Greek 
learning — mere  Latin  scholars."  That  is  to  say,  the  translators 
have  published  a  deliberate  falsehood  on  the  very  title-page  of 
their  great  work  :  and  either  falsehood,  or  less  information  concern- 
ing them  than  we  now  possess,  must  be  charged  upon  those  of 
their  contemporaries  who  have  represented  them  as  the  most 
learned,  pious,  and  venerable  company  that  were  ever  united  in 
any  one  great  literary  undertaking.  The  more  we  consider  these 
assertions,  the  greater  is  our  amazement.  There  is  no  fact  in 
history  better  ascertained  than  that  the  men  called  upon  in  1607 

•  The  sources  of  infurmation  on  this  subject,  and  on  the  subject  of  English  trans- 
lations generally,  are  Fuller's  Church  History  of  Great  Britain ;  Lewis's  History  of 
English  Biblical  Translations,  prefixed  to  his  folio  edition  of  WicklifFe's  New  Testa- 
ment, 1731 ;  Johnson's  historical  account  of  the  several  English  translations  of  the 
Bible,  originally  p>iblished  in  8vo.  1730,  and  reprinted  in  the  3d  vol.  of  Watson's 
Theological  Tracts;  Newcombe's  View  of  the  English  Biblical  Translations,  1792; 
Home's  Introduction,  vol.  3d;  Mr.  John  Bellamy's  new  Translation  and  notes, 
1818-21 ;  London  Quarterly  Review,  vols,  xix  and  xxiii ;  Eclectic  Review,  vol.  10, 
N.  S. ;  Antijacobin  Review,  vol.  liv. ;  Todd's  Vindication  of  our  authorized  Trans- 
lation, and  Translators,  1819  ;  Whittaker's  Historical  and  Critical  Inquiry  into  the 
Interpretation  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  1819,  and  supplement,  1820;  Prof.  Lee's 
Letter  to  Mr.  Bellamy,  1821;  Hymen  Hurwitz'  Vindiciae  Hebraicae,  1821.  All 
these  between  1818  and  1821  were  called  forth  by  the  misrepresentations  in  the  In- 
troduction and  notes  of  Mr.  Bellamy's  translation.  For  information  respecting  the 
particular  lives  of  the  different  translators,  the  reader  is  referred  to  Townley's  Illus- 
trations of  Biblical  Literature,  and  Chalmers's  Biographical  Dictionary,  unless  he  is 
disposed  to  glean  for  himself  from  Fuller,  Camden,  Antony  Wood,  &c. 


THE   ENGLISH    BIBLE.  507 

to  translate  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  men  eminently  qualified  for 
their  task,  and  that  they  did  translate  directly  from  the  original 
Greek  and  Hebrew.  Where  they  found  any  passages  already 
correctly  translated  in  any  of  the  existing  versions,  conveying  the 
exact  idea  of  the  original,  and  in  good  English,  they  did  not  of 
course  wantonly  change  the  phrase,  and  thus  give  unnecessary 
offence  to  the  people,  all  whose  prejudices  would  be  in  favour  of 
that  to  which  their  ears  haS  been  accustomed.  We  have  always 
admired  the  wisdom  of  that  part  of  the  King's  instructions 
relating  to  this  subject.  The  translation  then  most  commonly  in 
use  was  to  be  followed  with  as  little  alteration  as  was  con- 
sistent with  fidelity  to  the  original.  When  it  was  found  to  vary 
from  the  original,  and  the  true  meaning  had  been  expressed  by 
any  one  of  the  earlier  translations  which  were  still  in  use,  they 
were  then  to  adopt  its  phraseology.  Their  compliance  with  this 
part  of  their  regulations  contributed  we  doubt  not  in  no  small 
degree  to  that  unparalleled  popularity  which  this  translation 
almost  immediately  received,  and  has  to  this  day  retained;  a 
popularity  so  great  that  all  the  preceding  translations,  though 
of  acknowledged  excellence,  have  gradually  passed  into  disuse, 
and  are  now  so  rare  that  the  possessor  of  some  four  or  five  of 
them,  trumpets  it  over  the  land  as  a  literary  curiosity.  In 
adopting  this  course,  those  men  did  what  any  man  of  sense  would 
now  do  who  should  attempt  to  give  a  new  translation  of  the  Bible. 
They  did  precisely  what  Dr.  Homer  himself  proposes  to  do.  They 
adopted  the  "  special  good  renderings"  of  each  existing  transla- 
tion, and  where  they  found  none  such  they  made  one.  This 
was,  in  full  justness  of  speech,  giving  a  new  translation ;  and  so 
is  what  Dr.  Homer  calls  *'  seeking  to  improve  the  text  of  the 
common  version."  The  thing  aimed  at  in  both  cases  is  precisely 
the  same.  The  only  difference  is,  that  in  the  present  case,  it  is  one 
irresponsible,  unknown  individual,  who  takes  upon  himself  the 
important  office,  without  any  urgent  necessity,  unsolicited  by  any 
public  body,  and  untrammelled  by  any  established  rules.  In  the 
other  case,  it  was  a  numerous  body  of  the  most  illustrious  scholars, 
maintained  at  the  public  expense,  enjoying  the  public  confidence, 
and  summoned  to  the  work  by  the  Head  of  a  mighty  nation  hun- 
gering for  the  pure  Word  of  God. 

The  translation  of  the  Scriptures  is  not  a  work  to  be  intrusted, 
except  from  imperative  necessity,  to  any  one  man,  however  gigan- 
tic may  be  his  attainments  or  his  genius.  Dormitat  aliquando 
Homerus,  Though  he  may  give  a  "  special  good  rendering"  in  one 
place,  he  may  give  a  special  bad  one  in  another.  Hence  the  number 
of  translators  em  ployed  by  King  James  adds  greatly  to  the  authority 
of  their  work.  What  is  overlooked  or  omitted  by  one,  may  be  ob- 
served or  supplied  by  another.  Although  fifty-four  men  who  knew 
nothing  of  Greek  or  Hebrew  might  not  have  the  authority  of  one 
who  did :  yet  when,  as  in  the  case  of  our  translators,  all  of  them 
were  men  of  learning  and  ability,  and  some  of  them  pre-eminently 


50d  THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE. 

and  proverbially  so,  the  largeness  of  the  number  does  give  a  secu- 
rity from  mistake  which  nothing  else  can.  Every  one  has  his 
peculiarities  of  character  and  opmion  which  fit  him  for  some  par- 
ticular duty,  and  disqualify  him  to  a  certain  extent  for  every  other. 
The  man  best  suited  to  translate  the  Psalms  of  David  would  not 
be  the  one  we  should  select  to  translate  Paul's  Epistles,  nor  either 
of  these  to  translate  those  parts  relating  to  the  details  of  Solomon's 
temple,  or  of  the  Levitical  ritual.  Great  attention  was  paid  to  this 
in  allolting  to  the  several  translators  their  respective  portions,  each 
receiving  that  for  which  he  was  best  qualified.  By  this  means  ail 
the  advantages,  arising  from  division  of  labour  in  the  execution  of 
the  details,  were  secured  ;  while  by  another  admirable  regulation, 
by  which  each  man's  work  when  finished  had  to  be  submitted  to 
the  inspection  and  judgment  of  all  the  rest,  individual  peculiarities 
were  prevented  from  running  into  extravagance,  and  harmony  pre- 
servea  throughout  the  whole. 

The  time  in  which  our  translation  was  made  was  peculiarly 
fitted  to  secure  one  which  would  become,  as  it  has,  a  common 
standard.  At  the  first  outbreak  of  the  reformation,  the  errors  of 
the  church  of  Rome  were  not  all  immediately  dissipated.  Like 
the  mists  of  the  morning,  one  error  after  another  gradually  disap- 
peared before  the  steadily  increasing  light  of  day.  It  was  a  cen- 
tury at  least  before  the  Reformed  Churches  were  fully  purified 
from  that  polluting  superstition  which  had  equally  defiled  the  doc- 
trines, the  rites,  and  the  language  of  religion.  The  exasperation, 
likewise,  consequent  upon  the  first  separation  from  the  Church  of 
Rome  was  exceedingly  great  on  both  sides,  and  did  not  soon  sub- 
side. Had  our  version,  then,  been  made  at  an  earlier  period,  it 
could  not  so  admirably  have  escaped  the  opposite  dangers  of  being 
in  some  parts  unintentionally  tinctured  with  anti-Papal  prejudice, 
and  of  savouring  in  others  of  the  still  existing  leaven  of  Mother 
Church.  The  agitated  waters  of  the  Reformation  had  subsided, 
and  the  pure  fountain  of  truth  was  left  undefiled  by  the  pollutions 
both  of  its  turbid  and  its  stagnant  state. 

It  was,  too,  that  precise  time  when  the  zeal  of  Protestants  had 
ceased  to  be  zeal  against  the  Pope,  and  had  not  begun  to  be  zeal 
against  each  other.  Protestantism  was  still  to  a  great  extent  one 
and  homogeneous.  The  diflferent  sects  into  which  it  was  divided 
were  sufficiently  jealous  of  each  other  to  prevent  the  improper 
favouring  of  any  one  set  of  opinions,  and  yet  not  so  widely  apart 
as  to  forbid  all  co-operation  or  concurrence.  The  lines  of  demar- 
cation were  not  so  strong  and  well  defined,  nor  the  barriers  so 
impassable  as  they  have  since  become.  The  work,  therefore,  is 
not  sectarian  in  its  origin  or  its  character.  It  is  in  the  strictest 
sense  a  national  translation.  It  is  the  acknowledged  and  estab- 
lished standard  of  every  denomination  except  the  Roman  Catholics 
and  some  few  Unitarians.  No  translation  now  made  could  ever 
become  this.  The  Presbyterians,  the  Associate  Reformed,  the 
Dutch  Reformed,  the  Lutherans,  the  Congregationalists,  the  Metho- 


THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE.  509 

dist  Episcopalians,  the  Protestant  Episcopalians,  the  Baptists,  and 
the  Quakers,  of  this  country ;  the  Church  of  England,  the  Church 
of  Scotland,  and  the  various  bodies  of  dissenters  in  Great  Britain 
and  elsewhere,  speaking  the  English  language,  will  assuredly 
never  unite  for  this  purpose  ;  and  a  new  translation  put  forth  by 
any  one  denomination  will  never  be  adopted  by  the  rest.  If  Dr. 
Homer  thinks  that  all  these  will  lay  aside  their  sectarian  jealousies, 
and  that  more  than  thirty  millions  of  people  will  free  themselves 
of  their  deep  rooted  prejudices  in  favour  of  Bible  phrases  to  which 
their  ears  have  been  accustomed,  out  of  respect  to  his  select  "  spe- 
cial good  renderings,"  his  opinion  differs  greatly  from  ours,  as  to 
the  attractiveness  of  an  "  improved  text  of  the  common  version." 
We  cannot  persuade  ourselves  that  any  such  improvement  would 
gain  the  public  confidence,  even  though  made  from  the  accumu- 
lated "  notes  "  of  fifty-eight  years  "  with  the  consulted  aid  of  more 
than  two  hundred  critical  works,"  and  agreeing  "  with  Gesenius, 
Stuart,  and  the  richest  parts  of  Rosenmiilier." 

The  age  in  which  our  translation  was  made  was  pre-eminently 
a  learned  age.  In  science  and  the  arts,  that  in  which  we  live  is, 
we  admit,  greatly  beyond  its  predecessors.  But  so  far  as  learning 
and  scholarship  is  concerned,  we  do  affirm  there  never  has  been 
an  age  equal  to  it.  There  never  was  an  age  distinguished  by  so 
many  illustrious  scholars  in  every  department  of  classical  and  bibli- 
cal learning.  Where  do  we  go  for  profound  original  information  on 
Latin,  Greek,  or  Oriental  Literature  ?  Where  are  the  great  store- 
houses from  which  our  modern  bookmakers  draw  their  Lexicons, 
their  Grammars,  their  Commentaries  ?  Was  Melancthon  "  a  mere 
Latin  scholar?"  Did  Roger  Ascham  know  nothing  of  Greek  ?  Were 
Erpenius,  and  Golius,  and  Pococke,  unacquainted  with  Arabic  ? 
Was  Hebrew  a  dead  letter  to  such  men  as  Buxtorf,  Morinus,  Pag- 
ninus,  Arias  Montanus,  Tremellius,  Junius,  Beza,  Castell,  Walton, 
and  Pool  ?  Where  is  the  public  Library  three-fourths  of  whose 
volumes  on  sacred  philology  are  not  dated  in  the  16th  and  17th 
centuries  ?  We  find  in  this  period  among  the  magnates  of  Orien- 
tal and  Classical  learning,  besides  those  already  mentioned,  such 
names  as  Budaeus,  Erasmus,  Turnebus,  the  Scaligers,  P.  Manutius, 
Aldus  Manutius,  the  younger  Casaubon,  Fagius,  the  Moreles, 
Gesner,  Fabricius,  Morus,  Glass,  Capellus,  Grotius,  Usher,  Light- 
foot,  Montfaucon,  Vossius,  Heinsius  (father  and  son),  Bochai't, 
Meursius,  Robert  and  Henry  Stephens,  all  of  them  scholars  of  the 
very  highest  order ;  to  say  nothing  of  the  incomparable  divines, 
and  illustrious  authors  of  every  sort  and  in  every  nation  who 
flourished  during  the  same  period.  Now  though  all  these  were 
not  living  at  the  time  our  translation  was  made,  yet  a  majority  of 
them  were  contemporary  with  the  translators  ;  and  they  show  the 
general  character  of  the  age,  that  it  was  the  age  of  great  men, 
especially  of  great  scholars.  The  eighteenth  century  excelled  it 
in  science  and  works  of  taste.  But  for  men  of  profound  erudition, 
beyond  all  contradiction  there  never  was  such  a  period  since  the 


510  THE    ENGLISH   BIBLE. 

foundation  of  the  world.  The  turn  which  the  Reformation  took, 
and  the  great  controversies  between  the  Papacy  and  its  opposers, 
appealing  at  every  step  to  the  original  languages  of  Scripture, 
made  Greek  and  Hebrew  what  politics  is  now,  the  great  absorb- 
ing topic  of  the  world.  Critical  editions  of  the  Bible  and  of  Clas- 
sical authors  were  published  on  a  scale  and  in  a  style  utterly 
unparalleled.  The  immense  Thesaurus  of  the  Greek  language  by 
Henry  Stephens,  the  Rabbinical  Lexicon  of  Buxtorf,  the  Arabic 
Lexicon  ot  Golius,  the  Hierozoicon  of  Bochart,  the  twelve  folio 
volumes  of  Meursius  on  Grecian  Antiquities,  are  but  specimens  of 
the  thorough-going  manner  in  which  the  scholars  of  that  day 
handled  every  subject  which  they  attempted.  It  is  impossible 
even  to  glance  at  their  productions  without  a  profound  admiration 
of  their  scholarship,  only  equalled  by  our  amazement  at  the  effron- 
tery which  would  call  it  in  question.  Their  very  printers  were 
learned  men.  Even  their  books  of  devotion  are  so  crowded  with 
Greek  and  Hebrew  that  many  a  sciolist  of  these  days  could  not 
read  a  page  in  them  without  his  Lexicon  and  Grammar,  who  yet 
would  not  blush  to  call  himself  a  scholar,  or  to  attempt  with  some 
**  consulted  aids  "  to  make  a  new  translation  of  the  Bible. 

In  England,  especially,  the  learned  languages  became  so  much 
a  matter  of  universal  concern,  that  acquaintance  with  them  was 
considered  one  of  the  accomplishments  of  the  drawing-room. 
Fuller  tells  us  it  was  one  of  the  elegant  pastimes  of  fashionable 
ladies,  and  of  the  daughters  of  the  principal  nobility,  to  translate 
select  passages  from  the  original  Scriptures  for  the  inspection  of 
their  friends.  Queen  Elizabeth,  we  know,  spoke  familiarly  Greek 
and  Latin.  And  it  is  said,  though  we  know  not  on  what  authority, 
that  some  of  the  old  Puritan  divines  were  accustomed  to  use  their 
Hebrew  Bibles  and  Greek  Testaments  at  their  family  devotion 
morning  and  evening.*  Indeed,  so  proverbial  were  the  leading 
Reformers  in  Great  Britain,  whether  conformists  or  non-conform- 


•  This  was  originally  the  custom  in  Harvard  College.  "  The  President  inspected 
the  manners  of  the  students  thus  entertained  in  the  College,  and  unto  his  morning 
and  erening  prayers  in  the  hall,  joined  an  exposition  upon  the  chapters  which  they 
[the  students  J  read  out  of  Hebrew  into  Greek  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  morn- 
injr,  and  out  of  English  into  Greek  from  the  New  Testament  in  the  evening."  .... 
••  The  Fellows  resident  on  the  place  became  Tutors  to  the  several  classes,  and  after 
th«f  h»d  instructed  them  in  the  Hebrew  language,  led  them  through  all  the  liberal 
arts."  "  When  he  [Mr.  'Nathaniel  Mather]  was  but  twelve  years  old,  he  was  admit- 
ted into  the  CoU^e  by  strict  examiners  :  and  many  months  after  this  passed  not. 
More  he  had  accurately  gone  over  all  the  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew,  as  well  as  the 

New  in  Greek He  commenced  bachelor  at  the  age  of  sixteen,  and  in  the 

act  entertained  the  auditory  with  an  Hebrew  oration,  which  gave  a  good  account  of 
theacaderoical  affairs  among  the  ancient  Jews.  Indeed  the  Hebrew  language  was 
become  eo  familiar  with  him,  as  if  (to  use  the  expression  which  one  had  in  an  inge- 
ntons  ele^  upon  his  death)  he  had  apprehended  it  should  quickly  become  the  only 
language.  When  he  took  his  second  degree  three  years  afterwards,  besides  more 
than  ordinary  attainments  m  other  branches  of  learning,  "  he  had  likewise  made  no 
•mall  Proficiency  in  Rabbmick  learning ;  and  the  questions  referring  unto  the  Scrip- 
tures, which  philology  is  conversant  about,  came  under  a  very  critical  notice  with 
w™r  ,  "w  <*'«*,?*»ojJ*y  af ;«»■,  aged  but  nineteen  years  and  some  months.  See  Cotton 
Mather's  Magnalia,  Vol.  II.,  pages  9  and  133  of  the  Hartford  Edition. 


THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE.  51! 

ists,  for  their  learning,  that  the  Romanists,  when  no  longer  able 
to  compete  with  them,  endeavoured  to  ridicule  them  as  mere 
scholars.     Dr.  George  Hakewell,  a  contemporary,  in  a  work  first 
published  in  1627,  says, "  This  latter  age  hath  herein  so  far  excelled, 
that  all  the  great  learned  scholars,  who  have  of  late  risen,  espe- 
cially if  they  adhered  to  the  Reformed  Churches,  have  been  by 
friars  and  such  like  people,  in  a  kind  of  scorn  termed  grammarians. 
But  these  grammarians  are  they  who  presented  us  with  so  many 
exact   translations    out   of  Hebrew  and    Greek   into    Latin^  and 
again  out  of  Latin  into  other  languages.     To  which  may  be  added 
the  exquisite  help  of  dictionaries,  lexicons,  and  grammars,  in  this 
latter  age,  beyond  the  precedent,  not  only  for  the  easier  learning 
of  the  western  languages,  Latin,  Italian,  Spanish,  and  French  ;  but 
especially  the  eastern,  the  Hebrew,  the  Chaldee,  the  Syriac,  the 
Arabic.     Of  all  the  ancient  fathers,  but  only  two  (among  the 
Latins,  St.  Jerome,  and  Origen  among  the  Grecians)  are  found  to 
have  excelled  in  the  Oriental  languages ;  this  last  century  having 
afforded  more  skilful  men  in  that  way  than  the  other  fifteen  since 
Christ."     Now  is  it  probable  that,  only  twenty  years  before  this 
testimony  was  written,  the  monarch  of  an   enlightened   nation, 
himself  proud  of  being  thought  a  learned  man,  and  ambitious  to 
effect  a  version  of  the  Scriptures  that  might  be  quoted  as  the  great 
glory  of  his  reign,  should  not  be  able,  out  of  fifty-four  of  the  prin- 
cipal scholars  in  the  kingdom,  including  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
Professors  of  the  Universities,  and  the  most  distinguished  heads 
and  fellows  of  the  several  Colleges,  to  obtain  any  learned  and 
honest  enough  to  "translate  directly  from  the  originals?"     But 
laying  aside  all  probabilities,  what  are  the  known  facts  of  the  case 
as  recorded  by  unquestioned  contemporary  historians  ?       Who 
were  the  venerable  men  called  by  King  James  to  this  celebrated 
undertaking  ?     Many  of  them,  it  is  true,  with  the  unobtrusiveness 
of  genuine  scholars,  never  pushed  themselves  much  into  public 
notice  ;  and  the  most  we  know  of  their  individual  history  is  a  mere 
catalogue  of  their  works,  and  their  preferments,  gathered   from 
public  records,  and  from  the  incidental  notices  scattered  through  the 
authors  of  that  period.     But  of  others  we  have  full  and  detailed 
information.     And  of  all,  we  know  enough  to  be  fully  borne  out 
in  the    assertion    before  made,  that  a  more   learned   and   pious 
assembly  the  world  never  saw  united  in  any  one  literary  under- 
taking. 

Some  of  the  names  about  to  be  introduced  are  so  familiar  to 
scholars  that  it  would  seem  necessary  to  apologize  for  dwelling 
upon  them  at  all.  The  extracts,  however,  which  we  have  given 
from  one  "  who  is  more  intimately  acquainted  with  the  subject  than 
any  other  individual  in  the  country,"  show  that  a  somewhat 
detailed  account  of  these  men  is  not,  as  we  had  supposed,  entirely 
a  work  of  supererogation. 

William  Bedwell  was  one  of  the  most  eminent  orientalists  of 
his  time.     His  fame  for  Arabic  learning  was  so  great  that  he  was 


^1^ 


THE   ENGLISH    BIBLE. 


resorted  to  by  Erpenius,  during  his  residence  in  England  in  1606, 
for  directions  in  his  oriental  studies.  He  was  Arabic  tutor  also  to 
the  great  Dr.  Pococke.  He  commenced  the  preparation  of  a 
general  Arabic  Lexicon  in  3  vols,  folio,  and  having  proceeded  in 
the  work  for  several  years,  he  went  to  Holland  for  the  greater 
perfection  of  it  by  a  collation  of  the  papers  of  Joseph  Scaliger, 
who  had  made  a  collection  of  twenty  thousand  words  in  that  lan- 
guage. In  consequence  of  the  vastness  of  the  design,  and  the 
slowness  with  which  he  proceeded  in  it,  he  was  anticipated  in  the 
publication  by  the  Lexicon  of  Golius,  the  completeness  of  which 
made  his  labours  abortive.  Eight  or  nine  volumes  of  the  manu- 
scripts of  this  great  work  were  employed  by  Castell  in  the  com- 
pilation of  his  unrivalled  Polyglot  Lexicon.  Bedwell  also  com- 
menced a  Persian  Dictionary,  which  he  did  not  live  to  complete. 
He  published  an  edition  of  all  the  Epistles  of  John  in  Arabic  with 
a  Latin  translation,  which  was  printed  in  4to,  in  1612  at  the  press 
of  Raphelenigus.  In  1615  he  published  another  work  entitled  "  a 
discovery  of  the  importance  of  Mahomet  and  the  Koran;"  to 
which  is  appended  a  very  curious  illustration  of  oriental  etymology 
and  history  called  "the  Arabian  Trudgman."  He  left  at  his 
death  many  Arabic  manuscripts  to  the  University  of  Cambridge 
with  numerous  notes  upon  them,  and  a  fount  of  types  for  printing 
them. 

Miles  Smith  is  remarkable  as  having  been  the  penman  of  the 
"  Translators'  Preface."  Such  was  his  profound  knowledge,  espe- 
cially of  the  languages,  that  he  was  called  "a  very  walking 
library."  He  applied  himself  from  early  youth  with  great  assiduity 
to  the  reading  of  the  classics,  and  was  very  extensively  read  in 
the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers.  He  was  accurately  versed  also  in 
Hebrew,  Chaldee,  Syriac,  and  Arabic ;  and  was  well  acquainted 
with  Rabbinical  literature  generally.  Having  taken  successively 
the  several  Academic  degrees  at  the  University  of  Oxford,  he  was 
finally  promoted,  as  a  reward  for  his  eminent  services  in  the  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible,  to  the  see  of  Gloucester,  which  he  continued 
to  adorn  till  his  death. 

Richard  Brett  "  was,"  says  Anthony  Wood,  "  a  person  famous 
in  his  time  for  learning  as  well  as  piety,  skilled  and  versed  to  a 
criticism  in  the  Latin,  Greek,  Hebrew,  Chaldaic,  Arabic,  and  Ethi- 
opic  tongues.  He  was  a  most  vigilant  pastor,  a  diligent  preacher 
of  God's  word,  a  liberal  benefactor  to  the  poor,  a  faithful  friend, 
and  a  good  neighbour." 

John  Boyse  was  the  son  of  a  clergyman  by  whom  he  was  taught 
the  first  rudiments  of  learning,  particulary  of  Hebrew.  His  mother, 
whose  memory  he  greatly  venerated,  appears  to  have  been  a 
woman  of  piety  and  information.  At  the  beginning  of  a  Common 
Prayer  Book  he  wrote :  "  This  was  my  mother's  book  ;  my  good 
mother's  book.  She  had  read  the  Bible  over  twelve  times,  and  the 
Book  of  Martyrs  twice,  besides  other  books  not  a  few  "  With  an 
excellent  capacity,  and  under  such  parents,  his  progress  in  know- 


THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE.  618 

ledge  was  considerable,  and  before  he  was  five  years  old  he  had 
read  the  whole  of  the  Bible  ;  and  before  he  was  six  could  write 
Hebrew  in  an  elegant  hand.  At  fourteen  he  was  admitted  of  St. 
John's  College,  Cambridge,  where  he  distinguished  himself  by  his 
knowledge  of  Greek ;  and  applied  so  diligently  to  his  studies,  that 
we  are  told  he  would  go  to  the  University  Library  in  summer,  at 
four  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  remain  till  eight  in  the  evening 
without  intermission.  Happening  to  have  the  small-pox  when  he 
was  elected  Fellow,  to  preserve  his  seniority  he  caused  himself  to 
be  carried,  wrapped  up  in  blankets,  to  be  admitted.  He  was  ten 
years  chief  Greek  lecturer  in  his  college,  and  read  every  day.  He 
voluntarily  read  a  Greek  lecture  for  some  years  at  four  in  the 
morning  in  his  own  chamber,  which  was  frequented  by  many  of 
the  Fellows.  Having  received  several  ecclesiastical  perferments, 
he  died  in  1643  in  the  84th  year  of  his  age,  leaving  behind  him 
a  great  many  manuscripts,  some  of  which  were  afterwards 
printed. 

Sir  Henry  Saville  was  a  learned  man  and  a  great  benefactor  of 
learning.  Born  to  an  ample  fortune,  he  spent  it  all  (upon  the  loss 
of  his  only  son)  in  the  advancement  of  knowledge.  He  founded 
two  Professorships  at  Oxford,  which  are  still  called  by  his  name. 
He  published  at  vast  expense  many  valuable  works,  among  others 
the  splendid  edition  of  Chrysostom's  Works  of  1613,  in  8  vols, 
folio,  which  alone  cost  him  no  less  than  eight  thousand  pounds. 
His  various  contributions  of  money,  of  rare  books  and  manuscripts, 
of  founts  of  type  to  public  presses  and  Libraries,  caused  him  to  be 
considered  as  the  great  Maecenas  of  the  age.  He  was  at  one 
time  Greek  Tutor  to  Queen  Elizabeth :  and  James  had  such  a 
regard  for  him,  that  he  would  have  given  him  almost  any  prefer- 
ment. Saville,  however,  declined,  accepting  only  the  honour  of 
knighthood.  He  was  Fellow,  and  for  thirty  years  Warden  of 
Merton  College,  in  which  station  he  acquired  great  reputation. 
He  was  afterwards  chosen  Provost  of  Eton  College,  and  greatly 
increased  its  fame  by  the  learned  men  with  which  he  filled  it.  The 
kind  of  scholarship  which  he  aimed  at  and  patronized  may  be 
judged  of  from  this :  "  Give  me,"  he  used  to  say,  "  the  plodding 
student.  If  I  would  look  for  wits,  I  would  go  to  Newgate.  There 
be  wits." 

Andrew  Downes  was  one  of  the  learned  men  whose  notes  ac- 
company Sir  Henry  Saville's  famous  edition  of  Chrysostom's  works. 
He  was  Regius  Professor  of  Greek  in  Cambridge  University,  and 
was  accounted  one  of  the  best  scholars  of  his  time. 

Launcelot  Andrews  made  such  early  proficiency  in  knowledge 
as  secured  for  him  promotion  almost  immediately  after  his  entrance 
as  a  student  at  Cambridge.  When  thirty-four  years  of  age  he 
was  chosen  Master  of  Pembroke  Hall,  in  which  station  he  continued 
for  sixteen  years.  After  that  he  was  made  successively  Bishop  of 
Chichester,  Ely,  and  Winchester.  He  took  a  conspicuous  part  in 
the  conference  at  Hampton  Court ;  and  was  remarkable  for  the 

33 


§11  THE   ENGLISH   BIBLE* 

• 

ieriousness  of  his  manner,  "  his  gravity  awing  King  James,  who 
refrained  from  that  mirth  and  liberty,  in  the  presence  of  this  Prelate, 
which  otherwise  he  assumed  to  himself."  He  was  a  most  indefa- 
tigable student.  The  annual  visit  which  he  paid,  while  at  the  Uni- 
versity, to  his  parents  at  Easter,  was  always  spent  in  the  acquisition 
of  some  new  language  or  art  with  which  he  was  previously  unac- 
quainted. By  his  unremitting  attention  to  study  he  rose  to  be  one 
of  the  most  distinguished  scholars  of  his  age.  Fuller  says  of  him  : 
**  The  world  wanted  learning  to  know  how  learned  this  man  was  ; 
80  skilled  in  all  (especially  the  Oriental)  languages,  that  some  con- 
ceive he  might,  if  then  living,  almost  have  served  as  interpreter 
general  at  the  confusion  of  tongues." 

John  Laifield.  "  Being  skilled  in  architecture,  his  judgment  was 
much  relied  on  for  the  fabric  of  the  Tabernacle  and  Temple."* 

Richard  Kilbye  was  educated  in  Lincoln  College,  where  he  was 
successively  Fellow  and  Rector,  and  after  some  ecclesiastical  prefer- 
ments was  appointed  Hebrew  Professor  in  the  University  of  Oxford. 
He  was  at  one  time  Tutor  to  the  celebrated  Bishop  Sanderson  ;  and 
Izaak  Walton,  in  his  life  of  that  distinguished  Prelate,  relates  an  inte- 
resting anecdote  of  him.  "  Dr.  Kilbye,  an  excellent  critic  in  the 
Hebrew  tongue  and  Professor  of  it  in  the  University,  a  perfect  Gre- 
cian and  one  of  the  translators,  going  into  the  country,  took  Mr.  San- 
derson to  bear  him  company.  Being  at  church  on  Sunday,  they 
found  the  young  preacher  to  have  no  more  discretion  than  to  waste 
a  great  part  of  the  time  allotted  for  his  sermon  in  exceptions  against 
the  late  translation  of  several  words  (not  expecting  such  a  hearer 
as  Dr.  Kilbye),  and  showed  three  reasons  why  a  particular  word 
•hould  have  been  otherwise  translated.  The  preacher  in  the  even- 
ing was  invited  to  the  Doctor's  friend's  house,  where  after  some 
other  conference  the  Doctor  told  him  he  might  have  preached  more 
useful  doctrine,  and  not  have  filled  his  auditors'  ears  with  needless 
exceptions  against  the  late  translation:  and,  for  that  word  for 
which  he  offered  that  poor  congregation  three  reasons  why  it  ought 
to  have  been  translated  as  he  said,  he  and  others  had  considered 
all  of  them  and  found  thirteen  more  considerable  reasons  why  it 
was  translated  as  now  printed."!  To  how  many  of  this  day  might 
it  be  said,  mutatis  mutandis j  de  tefahula  narratur. 

William  Spencer,  Greek  Lecturer  in  Trinity  College,  and  after- 
wards chosen  to  be  Professor  of  Divinity  in  Gresham  College, 
I^ndoD,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Vice  Chancellor  and  several 
Mds  of  Colleges  at  Cambridge,  several  of  the  nobility,  and  of 
King  James  himself,  who  thought  it  a  suitable  recommendation  for 
one  of  the  translators  of  the  Bible. 

John  Uarmar  was  Regius  Professor  of  Greek  in  the  Universitv 
of  Oxford,  for  nine  years  Chief  Master  of  Winchester  School,  and 
seventeen  Warden  of  the  College  there.  He  translated  Beza's 
bermons  into  English,  and  several  of  Chrysostom's  works  into 

•  FuUer»i  Church  Hittory.  ^  Johnson's  Historical  Account. 


THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE.  51^ 

Latin.  He  was  well  read  in  the  Fathers  and  Schoolmen,  so  that 
he  held  public  disputations  with  some  of  the  celebrated  Catholic 
Doctors  during  his  travels  on  the  continent. 

Thomas  Holland  took  his  degrees  in  Exeter  College,  Oxford, 
with  great  applause ;  at  the  age  of  fifty  was  appointed  Regius 
Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  same,  and  three  years  after  elected 
Master,  "  being  accounted  a  prodigy  in  almost  all  kinds  of  litera- 
ture." He  appears  to  have  been  a  man  as  eminent  for  his  piety  as 
his  learning.  Towards  the  close  of  life  he  spent  a  great  part  of 
his  time  in  meditation  and  prayer.  "  Come,  O  come,  Lord  Jesus, 
thou  bright  morning  Star  !  Come,"  Lord  Jesus  :  I  desire  to  be  dis- 
solved and  to  be  with  thee,"  was  the  dying  exclamation  of  this 
aged  servant  of  God. 

John  Reynolds.  "  His  memory  was  little  less  than  miraculous, 
he  himself  being  the  truest  table  to  the  multitude  of  voluminous 
books  he  had  read  over,  whereby  he  could  readily  turn  to  all  mate- 
rial passages  in  every  leaf,  page,  volume,  paragraph,  not  to  descend 
lower  to  lines  and  letters."*  He  was  originally  a  Papist,  and  his 
brother  William  a  Protestant ;  but  engaging  in  disputation  they 
mutually  converted  each  other,  which  gave  rise  to  the  following 
distich. 

Quod  genus  hoc  pugnae  est  ?  ubi  victus  gaudet  uterque, 
£t  simul  alteruter  se  superasse  dolet. 

He  was  selected  for  his  great  abilities  as  the  Protestant  Cham- 
pion in  the  famous  dispute  with  the  Popish  controvertist  Hart, 
whom  he  obliged  to  quit  the  field.  In  1003  he  was  nominated  one 
of  the  Puritan  divines  to  attend  the  Conference  at  Hampton  Court; 
and  afterwards,  because  of  his  uncommon  skill  in  Greek  and 
Hebrew,  one  of  the  translators  of  the  Bible.  Before  the  comple- 
tion of  this  laborious  undertaking  he  was  seized  with  the  disease 
of  which  he  died.  He  continued  his  assistance,  however,  even  to 
the  last.  During  his  sickness,  his  learned  coadjutors  in  Oxford  met 
at  his  lodgings  regularly  once  a  week  to  compare  notes.  As  he 
approached  his  end  his  whole  time  was  spent  in  prayer  to  God,  in 
hearing  persons  read,  or  in  conferring  with  the  translators.  He 
died  at  length  in  the  68th  year  of  his  age,  a  man  greatly  venerated 
for  his  learning,  piety,  humility,  and  disinterestedness. 

Mr.  Edward  Lively,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  Uni- 
versity, and  said  to  be  profoundly  learned  in  the  Oriental  languages, 
also  died  before  the  completion  of  the  great  work. 

Laurence  Chaderton  was  of  a  Popish  family,  and  by  turning 
Protestant  so  enraged  his  father,  that  he  not  only  disinherited 
him,  but  *'  sent  him  a  poke  with  a  groat  in  it  to  go  a  begging." 
Dr.  Chaderton  declining,  from  his  great  modesty,  the  mastership  of 
Emanuel  College  then  about  to  be  founded.  Sir  Walter  Mildmay, 
the  donor,  from  his  great  esteem  of  the  man,  said,  "  If  you  will 

•  FuUer. 


516  THE   ENGLISH    BIBLE. 

not  be  master  of  the  College,  I  will  not  be  its  founder."  He 
re«igned  the  mastership  after  having  held  it  with  credit  thirty- 
eight  years.  He  was  strongly  opposed  to  Arminianism,  and  was 
one  01  the  Puritan  divines  nominated  by  King  James  to  attend  the 
Hampton  Court  Conference.  Chaderton  was  noted  for  his  strict- 
ness m  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath.  He  would  never  allow  his 
servant  to  be  detained  from  public  worship  to  cook  victuals.  "  I 
desire  as  much,"  said  he,  "  to  have  my  servants  know  the  Lord,  as 
myself."  Being  once  on  a  visit  to  his  friends  in  Lancashire,  he 
"was  invited  to  preach  ;  and  having  proceeded  in  his  discourse  full 
two  hours  he  paused  and  said,  "  I  will  no  longer  trespass  on  your 
patience,"  upon  which  all  the  congregation  cried  out,  "  for  God's 
sake  go  on,  go  on."  He  died  at  the  extraordinary  age  of  103  years, 
and  could  read  without  spectacles  to  the  last. 

Those  who  wish  to  follow  out  this  subject  will  be  abundantly 
gratified  by  a  reference  to  the  works  mentioned  in  a  previous  note. 
We  had  intended  to  give  a  similar  brief  sketch  of  each  of  the 
translators,  but  are  obliged  to  desist.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  of  the 
twenty-five  employed  in  translating  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  matter 
of  record  that  thirteen  were  men  eminently  skilled  in  the  Hebrew 
and  Oriental  languages,  including  six  who  were  or  had  been  regu- 
lar Hebrew  Professors  in  the  Universities.  Of  the  translators 
nearly  all  had  received  Fellowships  in  early  life  because  of  their 
great  proficiency  in  learning.  There  were  among  them  fifteen 
who  were  or  had  been  Heads  of  Colleges,  five  Vice  Chancellors  of 
the  Universities,  three  regular  Greek  Professors  in  the  Universities, 
seven  Divinity  Professors,  one  Archbishop,  and  seven  Bishops. 
They  were  remarkably  aged  men.  One  venerable  father  was 
eighty ;  others  were  upwards  of  seventy ;  and  indeed  the  average 
age  of  all  of  them,  so  far  as  ascertained,  was  considerably  more 
than  sixty.  This  fact  is  worthy  of  observation  as  leading  us  to 
understand  more  fully  the  peculiarly  venerable  impress  which  is 
stamped  upon  every  lineament  of  their  work.  This  would  be  still 
further  explained,  could  we  enter  into  more  full  details  illustrating 
their  eminent  piety  and  heavenly  mindedness.  But  our  limited 
space  will  not  permit  us  to  dwell  'longer  on  this  subject.  Enough 
has  been  said  surely  to  show  the  egregious  mistake  of  those  who 
call  in  question  the  qualifications  of  those  great  men,  and  represent 
^"Ipk^"*^"  as  the  antiquated  relic  of  an  unenlightened  age. 
•  The  internal  evidence  that  this  translation  was  made  directly 
from  the  originals,  that,  namely,  resulting  from  a  careful  examina- 
ticm  of  the  work  itself,  is  a  part  of  the  subject  upon  which  it  does 
not  seem  necessary  now  to  enter.  The  fact  is  so  clearlv  established, 
and  the  misrepresentations  of  those  who  have  denied" it  have  been 
so  frequently  exposed,  that  it  seems  hardly  worth  while  to  revive 
objections  merely  to  answer  them.  Dr.  Homer  does  indeed  pro- 
fess to  have  made  some  recent  discoveries,  having  proved  the  con- 
trary "by  a  full  exploring  of  the  New  Testament  in  1828."  But 
as  he  has  given  no  intimation  of  the  proofs  which  led  him  to 


THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE.  617 

this  conclusion,  we  must  decline  adopting  or  even  discussing  it, 
although  supported  by  the  authority  of  one  "  more  intimately 
acquainted  with  the  subject  than  any  other  individual  in  the* 
country." 

The  history  of  our  version  is  soon  told.  The  idea  was  first 
suggested  at  the  Hampton-Court  Conference  in  1603.  Dr.  Rey- 
nolds, being  of  the  number  opposed  to  conformity,  who  were  sum- 
moned to  attend,  among  other  things  giving  us  a  high  opinion  of 
his  piety,  said  :  "  May  it  please  your  Majesty  that  the  Bible  be 
new  translated,  such  as  are  extant  not  answering  to  the  original," 
and  he  instanced  three  particulars.  Bancroft,  Bishop  of  London, 
objected.  "  If  every  man's  humour,"  said  he,  "  might  be  followed, 
there  would  be  no  end  of  translating."  The  King,  however, 
seemed  pleased  with  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Reynolds,  and  said, 
"  I  profess  I  could  never  yet  see  a  Bible  well  translated  in  English, 
but  I  think,  that  of  all,  that  of  Geneva  is  the  worst.  I  wish 
some  special  pains  were  taken  for  an  uniform  translation ;  which 
should  be  done  by  the  best  learned  in  both  Universities,  then 
reviewed  by  the  Bishops,  presented  to  the  Privy  Council,  lastly 
ratified  by  royal  authority,  to  be  read  in  the  whole  Church,  and  no 
other."* 

James  seems  to  have  formed  very  just  notions  of  the  greatness 
of  such  an  undertaking,  and  the  deliberation  and  care  with  which 
it  should  be  conducted.  The  first  step  after  the  conference  was 
to  designate  fifty-four  learned  men  upon  whom  the  execution 
of  it  should  devolve.  By  whom  the  selection  was  made  does  not 
clearly  appear.  The  persons  thus  chosen  were  divided  into  six 
companies,  two  of  which  were  to  meet  at  Cambridge,  two  at 
Oxford,  and  two  at  Westminster.  The  work  did  not  actually 
commence  till  1607,  the  intervening  four  years  being  spent  in 
settling  preliminaries  and  making  all  the  necessary  preparations. 
That  they  might  give  themselves  wholly  to  the  business,  it 
was  necessary  that  they  should  be  released  as  far  as  possible  from 
all  other  engagements,  and  that  ample  means  for  their  support 
should  be  provided  in  places  affording  the  greatest  facilities  for  the 
consultation  of  men  and  books.  To  this  end  the  King  wrote  to 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  early  in  1604,  urging  him  to  make 
every  suitable  provision  for  the  translators  ;  and  requiring  that  the 
Prelates  should  inform  themselves  of  such  learned  men  in  their 
several  dioceses  as  had  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
tongues,  and  had  made  the  scriptures  a  special  study,  and  signify 
to  them  the  King's  pleasure  that  they  should  send  their  observa- 
tions to  one  of  three  persons  appointed  for  that  purpose.f  He 
gave  similar  instructions  to  the  Vice  Chancellors  and  heads  of  the 
colleges  in  the  Universities,  that  if  they  knew  of  any  other  fit 
translators  they  should  add  them  to  the  number ;  and  that  the 
translators  should  be  admitted  and  entertained  without  expense, 

♦Fuller.  t  Lewi*. 


5i$  THE   ENGLISH   BIBLE. 

should  receive  kind  usage,  and  while  engaged  in  the  work  should 
be  exempt  from  all  academical  exercises.  On  the  31st  of  July* 
•of  the  same  year  the  Bishop  of  London  was  directed  to  write 
to  that  part  of  the  translators  who  were  to  assemble  at  Cam- 
bridge, expressing  the  King's  acquiescence  in  the  selection  that 
bad  been  made,  and  his  desire  that  they  should  meet  and  begin 
their  work  with  all  possible  speed ;  that  his  majesty  was  not  satis- 
fied till  it  was  entered  on  ;  and  that  his  royal  mind  rejoiced  more 
in  the  good  hope  which  he  had  for  its  happy  success,  than  for  the 

Seace  concluded  with  Spain.  A  letter  was  addressed  the  same 
ay  to  the  Governors  of  the  University,  pressing  them  in  the 
•trongest  manner  to  assemble  the  translators,  and  to  further  the 
work.  Also  the  Prelates,  Deans,  and  Chapters,  were  recommended 
in  the  King's  name  to  raise  money  among  themselves  to  defray  the 
expenses  of  the  translators. 

As  an  additional  safeguard  against  mistake,  discrepancy  or  fail- 
ure, and  to  secure  to  this  work  every  advantage  which  the  king- 
dom afforded,  certain  rules  were  prescribed  by  the  King,  which 
were  to  be  very  carefully  observed. 

1.  The  ordinary  Bible  read  in  the  Church,  commonly  called  the 
Bishops*  Bible,  to  be  followed,  and  as  little  altered  as  the  original 
will  permit. 

2.  The  names  of  the  prophets  and  the  holy  writers,  with  the 
other  names  in  the  text,  to  be  retained  as  near  as  may  be  accord- 
ing as  they  are  vulgarly  used. 

3.  The  old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept,  as  the  word  Church 
not  to  be  translated  congregation,  &c. 

4.  When  any  word  hath  divers  significations,  that  to  be  kept 
which  hath  been  most  commonly  used  by  the  most  eminent 
Fathers,  being  agreeable  to  the  propriety  of  the  place,  and  the 
analogy  of  faith. 

5.  The  divisions  of  the  chapters  to  be  altered  either  not  at  all, 
or  as  little  as  may  be,  if  necessity  so  require. 

6.  No  marginal  notes  at  all  to  be  affixed,  but  only  for  the  expla- 
naiion  of  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  words,  which  cannot  without 
•ome  circumlocution  so  briefly  and  fitly  be  expressed  in  the 
text 

7.  Such  quotations  of  places  to  be  marginally  set  down  as  shall 
serve  for  the  fit  reference  of  one  Scripture  to  another. 

8.  Every  particular  man  of  each  company  to  take  the  same 
chapter  or  chapters ;  and  having  translated'  or  amended  them 
•everally  by  himself  where  he  ihinketh  good,  all  to  meet  together, 
confer  what  they  have  done,  and  agree  for  their  part  what  shall 
ftand. 

9.  As  any  one  company  hath  despatched  any  one  book  in  this 
manner,  they  shall  send  it  to  the  rest,  to  be  considered  of,  seriously 
and  judiciously  ;  for  his  majesty  is  careful  on  this  point. 

*  Lewis. 


THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE.  519 

10.  If  any  company,  upon  the  review  of  the  book  so  sent,  shall 
doubt  or  differ  upon  any  plans,  to  send  them  word  thereof,  note 
the  plans,  and  therewithal  send  their  reasons ;  to  which,  if  they 
consent  not,  the  difference  to  be  compounded  at  the  general  meet- 
ing, which  is  to  be  of  the  chief  persons  of  each  company  at  the 
end  of  the  work. 

11.  When  any  place  of  special  obscurity  is  doubted  of,  letters 
to  be  directed  by  authority,  to  send  to  any  learned  (man)  in  the 
land,  for  his  judgment  in  such  a  place. 

12.  Letters  to  be  sent  from  every  bishop  to  the  rest  of  his 
clergy,  admonishing  them  of  this  translation  in  hand,  and  to  move 
and  charge  as  many  as,  being  skilful  in  the  tongues,  have  taken 
pains  in  that  kind,  to  send  his  particular  observations  to  the  com- 
pany, either  at  Westminster,  Cambridge,  or  Oxford. 

13.  The  Directors  in  each  company  to  be,  the  Deans  of  West- 
minster and  Chester,  for  that  place  ;  and  the  King's  Professors  in 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek,  in  each  University. 

14.  These  translations  to  be  used  when  they  agree  better  with 
the  text  than  the  Bishops*Bible  ;  viz.  1.  Tindal's  ;  2.  Matthewe's; 
3.  Coverdale's  ;  4.  Whitchurche*s  ;  5.  Geneva. 

"  Besides  the  said  directions,  three  or  four  of  the  most  ancient 
and  grave  divines  in  either  of  the  Universities,  not  employed  in 
translating,  to  be  assigned  by  the  Vice  Chancellor,  upon  confer- 
ence with  the  rest  of  the  Heads,  to  be  Overseers  of  the  translations, 
as  well  Hebrew  as  Greek,  for  the  better  observance  of  the  fourth 
rule  above  specified."* 

The  portions  allotted  to  the  different  translators  were  as  follows: 

Pentateuch  to  the  end  of  2  Kings,  to  Andrews,  Overall,  Saravia, 
Clarke,  Layfield,  Tighe,  Burleigh,  King,  Thompson,  Bedwell ;  to 
meet  at  Westminster. 

The  rest  of  the  historical  books,  and  the  Hagiographa,  viz. : 
Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Canticles,  Ecclesiastes,  to  Lively,  Richard- 
son, Chaderton,  Dillingham,  Harrison,  Andrews,  Spalding,  Bing ; 
to  meet  at  Cambridge. 

The  four  Greater  Prophets,  with  the  Lamentations,  and  the 
Twelve  Lesser  Prophets,  to  Harding,  Reynolds,  Holland,  Kilby, 
Smith,  Brett,  Fairclowe  ;  to  meet  at  Oxford. 

The  prayer  of  Manasses,  and  the  rest  of  the  Apocrypha,  to 
Duport,  Branthwaite,  Radclifie,  S.  Ward,  Downes,  Boyse,  Ward 
(of  King's  College)  ;  to  meet  at  Cambridge. 

The  four  Gospels,  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  Apocalypse,  to 
Ravis,  Abbot,  Eedes,  Thompson,  Saville,  Peryn,  Ravens,  Harmar ; 
to  meet  at  Oxford. 

The  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  the  Catholic  Epistles,  to  Barlow, 
Hutchinson,  Spencer,  Fenton,  Rabbett,  Sanderson,  Dakins;  to 
meet  at  Westminster. 

The  number  originally  designated  was  fifty-four.     But  these 

•  Fuller. 


ffp  THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE. 

forty-seven  are  those  actually  engaged  in  the  translation.  The 
other  seven  either  were  prevented  from  some  cause  not  recorded ; 
or,  as  is  likely,  included  the  four  overseers  before-mentioned,  and 
three  other  persons  who  assisted  in  the  work,  viz.,  Bishop  Bilson, 
who  aided  in  the  final  revision,  and  Doctors  Aglionby  and  Hulton 
who  were  employed  in  the  latter  stage  of  the  business,  though  in 
what  capacity  is  not  entirely  certain. 

All  thmgs  being  now  ready,  in  the  spring  of  1607,  the  translat- 
ors set  themselves  to  the  work  with  the  zeal  and  industry  of  men 
knowing  the  importance  of  the  labours  in  which  they  were 
engaged.  The  premature  death  of  Mr.  Lively  somewhat  retarded 
their  undertaking.  "  Nevertheless,"  says  Fuller,  "  the  rest  vigour- 
ously  though  slowly  proceeded  in  this  hard,  heavy,  and  holy  task, 
nothing  offended  with  the  censures  of  impatient  people,  condemn- 
ing their  delays,  though  indeed  but  due  consideration,  for  laziness." 
They  were  engaged  in  the  translation  nearly  three  years.  Of  the 
manner  in  which  they  proceeded  they  have  given  the  following 
account  in  their  preface.  "  Truly,  good  Christian  reader,  we 
never  thought  from  the  beginning,  that  we  should  need  to  make 
an  [entirely]  new  translation  ;  nor  yet  to  make  of  a  bad  one  a  good 
one  .  .  .  but  to  make  a  good  one  better,  or  out  of  many  good 
ones,  one  principal  good  one,  not  justly  to  be  excepted  against : 
that  hath  been  our  endeavour,  that  our  mark.  To  that  purpose 
there  were  many  [translators]  chosen,  that  were  greater  in  other 
men's  eyes  than  in  tkeir  own,  and  that  sought  the  truth,  not  their 
own  praise.  Again,  they  came  or  were  thought  to  come  to  the 
work,  not  exercendi  causa  (as  one  saith)  but  exercitatiy  that  is 
learned,  not  to  learn.  .  .  .  Therefore,  such  were  thought 
upon  as  could  say  modestly  with  St.  Jerome :  *  Et  Hehraeum 
Sermonem  ex  parte  didicimus,  et  in  Latino  pene  ah  ipsis  incunabilis 
detriti  rumus'  Both  we  have  learned  the  Hebrew  tongue  in  part, 
and  in  the  Latin  we  have  been  exercised  almost  from  our  very 
cradle.  .  .  .  And  in  what  sort  did  these  assemble  ?  In  the 
trust  of  their  own  knowledge,  or  of  their  sharpness  of  wit,  or 
deepness  of  judgment,  as  it  were  in  an  arm  of  flesh  ?  At  no  hand. 
They  trusted  in  Him  that  hath  the  key  of  David,  opening  and  no 
man  shutting ;  they  prayed  to  the  Lord,  the  Father  of  our  Lord, 
to  the  effect  that  St.  Augustine  did :  *  O  let  thy  Scriptures  be  my 
uure  delight,  let  me  not  be  deceived  in  them,  neither  let  me  deceive 
by  them.'  In  this  confidence,  and  with  this  devotion,  did  they 
asaembic  together:  not  too  many,  lest  one  should  trouble  another ; 
and  yet  many,  lest  many  things  haply  might  escape  them.  If  vou 
u  ^1 J  U^^y  ^^^  hchrQ  them,  truly  it  was  the  Hebrew  text  of 
the  Old  Testament,  the  Greek  of  the  New.     These  are  the  two 

f olden  pipes,  or  rather  conduits,  where-through  the  olive 
ranches  emptied  themselves  into  the  gold.  Saint  Augustine 
called  them  precedent,  or  original  tongues ;  Saint  Jerome,  foun- 
tains. The  same  Saint  Jerome  affirmeth,  .  .  .  that  as  the 
credit  of  the  old  Books  (he  meanelh  of  the   Old  Testament)  is 


THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE.  521 

to  be  tried   by  the    Hebrew  Volumes,  so  of  the   New  by  the 
Greek  tongue,  he  meaneth  by  the  original  Greek.     If  Truth  be  to 
be  tried  by  these  tongues,  then  whence  should  a  Translation  be 
made,  but  out  of  them  ?     These  tongues  therefore,  the  Scriptures 
we  say  in  these  tongues,  we  set  before  us  to  translate,  being  the 
tongues  wherein  God  was  pleased  to  speak  to  his  church  by  his 
Prophets  and  Apostles.     Neither  did  we  run  over  the  work  with 
that  posting  haste  that  the  Septuagint  did,  if  that  be  true  which  is 
reported  of  them,  that  they  finished  it  in  seventy-two  days :  nei- 
ther were  we  barred  or  hindered  from  going  over  it  again,  having 
once  done  it,  like  St.  Jerome,  if  that  be  true  which  himself  report- 
eth,  that  he  could  no  sooner  write  anything,  but  presently  it  was 
caught  from  him  and  published,  and  he  could  not  have  leave  to 
mend  it :  neither,  to  be  short,  were  we  the  first  that  fell  in  hand 
with  translating  the  Scripture  into  English,  and  consequently  des- 
titute of  former  helps,  as  it  is  written  of  Origen,  that  he  was  the 
first,  in  a  manner,  that  put  his  hand  to  write  Commentaries  upon 
the  Scriptures,  and  therefore  no  marvel  that  he  overshot  himself 
many  times.     None  of  these  things  :  the  work  hath  not  been  hud- 
dled up  in  seventy-two  days,  but  hath  cost  the  workmen,  as  light 
as  it  seemeth,  the  pains  of  twice  seven  times  seventy-two  days  and 
more  ;  matters  of  such  weight  and  consequence  are  to  be  speeded 
with  maturity  ;  for  in  a  business  of  moment  a  man  feareth  not  the 
blame  of  convenient  slackness.     Neither  did  we  think  much  to 
consult  the    Translators    or    Commentators,  Chaldee,   Hebrew, 
Syrian,  Greek,  or  Latin,  no,  nor  the  Spanish,  French,  Italian,  or 
Dutch  ;  neither  did  we  disdain  to  revise  what  we  had  done,  and 
to  bring  back  to  the  anvil  that  which  we  had  hammered  ;  but 
having  and  using  as  great  helps  as  were  needful,  and  fearing  no 
reproach  for  slowness,  nor  coveting  praise  for  expedition,  we  have 
at  length,  through  the  good  hand  of  the  Lord  upon  us,  brought  the 
work  to  that  pass  that  you  see."*     When  the  whole  was  finished, 
three  copies  of  it  were  sent  to  London  from  the  three  places  of 
rendezvous,  Cambridge,  Oxford,  and  Westminster.     Two  persons 
also  were  chosen  from  the  translators  assembled  in  each  of  those 
places,  to  review  and  polish  it.     These  six  met  daily  in  Stationers' 
Hall,  London  ;  where,  in  nine  months,  they  completed  their  task, 
receiving  each  of  them  thirty  pounds  by  the  week  while  thus 
engaged.     "  Last  of  all,  Bilson,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  and  Dr. 
Miles  Smith,  who,  from  the  beginning,  had  been  very  active  in 
this  aflfair,  again  reviewed  the  whole,  and  prefixed  arguments  to 
the  several  books  ;  and  Dr.  Smith,  who  for  his  indefatigable  pains 
taken  in  this  work,  was  soon  after  the  printing  of  it  made  Bishop 
of  Gloucester,  was  ordered  to  write  the  preface."f 

"  And  now  [1611]  after  long  expectation  and  great  desire,  came 
forth  the  new  translation  of  the  Bible  (most  beautifully  printed)  by 
a  select  and  competent  number  of  divines  appointed  for  that  pur- 

*  Translator's  Preface.  f  Lewis. 


m  THE   ENGLISH   BIBLE. 

pose,  not  being  too  many  lest  one  should  trouble  another,  and  yet 
many  lest  in  any,  things  might  haply  escape  them.  Who  neither 
coveting  praise  for  expedition,  nor  fearing  reproach  for  slackness 
(seeing  in  a  business  of  moment  none  deserve  blame  for  convenient 
slowness)  had  expended  almost  three  years  in  the  work,  not  only 
examining  channels  by  the  fountain,  translations  with  the  original 
(which  was  absolutely  necessary) ;  but  also  comparing  channels  with 
channels  {which  was  abundantly  useful),  in  the  Spanish,  Italian, 
French,  and  Dutch  languages.  So  that  their  industry,  skilfulness, 
piety,  and  discretion,  hath  therein  bound  the  church  unto  them  in 
a  debt  of  special  remembrance  and  thankfulness.  Leave  we  then 
these  worthy  men,  now  [1655]  all  of  them  gathered  to  their 
fathers  and  gone  to  God,  however  requited  on  earth,  well  reward- 
ed in  Heaven  for  their  worthy  work.  Of  whom,  as  also  of  that 
worthy  King  that  employed  them,  we  may  say,  *  wheresoever  the 
Bible  shall  be  preached  or  read  in  the  whole  world,  there  shall 
also  this  that  they  have  done  be  told  in  memorial  of  them.'  "* 

Considering  the  attainments  of  these  men,  their  high  standing, 
their  learning,  piety,  and  indefatigable  zeal,  and  the  peculiarly 
favourable  circumstances  in  which  they  were  called  to  the  work, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  they  should  have  been  enabled  to  produce 
a  translation  which  has  received  the  decided  approbation  of  almost 
all  men  of  learning  and  taste  from  that  day  to  this. 

"  The  last  English  translation  made  by  divers  learned  men  at 
the  command  of  King  James,  though  it  may  justly  contend  with 
any  now  extant  in  any  other  language  in  Europe,  was  yet  carped 
and  cavilled  at  by  divers  among  ourselves ;  especially  by  one,t 
who  being  passed  by  and  not  employed  in  the  work,  as  one, 
though  skilled  in  the  Hebrew,  yet  of  little  or  no  judgment  in  that 
or  any  other  kind  of  learning,  was  so  highly  offended  that  he 
would  needs  undertake  to  show  how  many  thousand  places  they 
had  falsely  rendered,  when  as  he  could  hardly  make  good  his 
undertaking  in  any  one."    Walton. 

**  The  vulgar  translation  of  the  Bible  is  the  best  standard  of  our 
language.**    Lowth. 

•*  When  the  translators  in  King  James  the  First's  time  began 
their  work,  they  prescribed  to  themselves  some  rules,  which  it  may 
not  be  amiss  for  all  translators  to  follow.  Their  reverence  for  the 
sacred  Scriptures  induced  them  to  be  as  literal  as  they  could,  to 
•void  obscurity ;  and  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  they  were 

•Fuller. 

t  Thi*  wmi  Hugh  Brou^bton,  "  a  learned  man,  especially  in  the  Eastern  lan- 
COMM,  but  very  opinionative,"  says  Fuller,  with  his  usual  comprehensive  brevity. 
LighUoot,  M  pre-eminent  for  his  Hebrew  and  Rabbinical  learning,  used  to  say  "  that 
BroQghtoB  bM  more  Hebrew  in  his  little  finger  than  I  have  in  my  whole  loins."  He 
]J"[.K'^y  chagrined  at  not  bein^  chosen  one  of  the  translators.  In  consequence 
rfhMidwwtieiaction,  and  having  in  vain  attempted  to  shake  the  credit  of  the  new 
tnoiAatJon,  he  went  abroad,  when  it  was  wittily  said  of  him  that  "  he  had  gone  to 
?*?  SS"'-^^*  Hebrew."  If  they  could  afford  to  spare  such  a  man,  merely  because 
he  lacked  judgment,  learning  could  not  have  been  such  a  scarce  commodity  among 
them  ••  some  people  seem  to  imagine. 


THE   ENGLISH   BIBLE.  523 

extremely  happy  in  the  simplicity  and  dignity  of  their  expressions. 
This  adherence  to  the  Hebrew  idiom  is  supposed  at  once  to  have 
enriched  and  adorned  our  language  ;  and  as  they  laboured  for  the 
general  benefit  of  the  learned  and  the  unlearned,  they  avoided  all 
words  of  Latin  original,  when  they  could  find  words  in  their  own 
language ;  even  with  the  aid  of  adverbs  and  prepositions,  which 
would  express  their  meaning."     Horsley. 

"  The  style  of  our  present  version  is  incomparably  superior  to 
anything  which  might  be  expected  from  the  finical  and  perverted 
taste  of  our  own  age.  It  is  simple,  it  is  harmonious,  it  is  energetic ; 
and,  which  is  of  no  small  importance,  use  has  made  it  familiar,  and 
time  has  rendered  it  sacred."     Middleton. 

"  The  highest  eulogiums  have  been  made  on  the  translation  of 
James  the  First,  both  by  our  own  writers  and  by  foreigners.  And 
indeed  if  accuracy,  fidelity,  and  the  strictest  attention  to  the  letter 
of  the  text,  be  supposed  to  constitute  the  qualities  of  an  excellent 
version,  this  of  all  versions  must  in  general  be  accounted  the  most 
excellent.  Every  sentence,  every  word,  every  syllable,  every 
letter  and  point,  seemed  to  have  been  weighed  with  the  nicest 
exactitude,  and  expressed  either  in  the  text  or  margin  with  the 
greatest  precision.  Pagninus  himself  is  hardly  more  literal  ;  and 
it  was  well  remarked  by  Robertson,  above  a  hundred  years  ago, 
that  it  might  serve  for  a  Lexicon  of  the  Hebrew  language,  as  well 
as  for  a  translation."    Dr.  Geddes. 

"  The  highest  value  has  always  been  attached  to  our  translation 
of  the  Bible.  Sciolists,  it  is  true,  have  often  attempted  to  raise 
their  own  reputation  on  the  ruin  of  that  of  others ;  and  the  authors 
of  the  English  Bible  have  frequently  been  calumniated  by  charla- 
tans of  every  description  :  but  it  may  safely  be  asserted,  without 
fear  of  contradiction,  that  the  nation  at  large  has  always  paid  our 
translators  the  tribute  of  veneration  and  gratitude  which  they  so 
justly  merit.  Their  reputation  for  learning  and  piety  has  not  des- 
cended with  them  to  the  grave,  though  they  are  alike  heedless  of 
the  voice  of  calumny,  and  deaf  to  the  praise  which  admiring  pos- 
terity awards  to  the  great  and  the  good.  Let  us  not,  therefore,  too 
hastily  conclude  that  they  have  fallen  on  evil  days  and  evil  tongues, 
because  it  has  occasionally  happened  that  *an  individual  as  inferior 
to  them  in  erudition  as  in  talents  and  integrity,  is  found  question- 
ing their  motives,  or  denying  their  qualifications  for  the  task  which 
they  so  well  performed.  Their  version  has  been  used,  ever  since  its 
first  appearance,  not  only  by  the  church,  but  by  all  the  sects  which 
have  forsaken  her ;  and  has  been  justly  esteemed  by  all  for  its 
general  faithfulness,  and  the  severe  beauty  of  its  language.  It 
may  be  compared  with  any  translation  in  the  world,  without  fear 
of  inferiority  ;  it  has  not  shrunk  from  the  most  vigorous  examina- 
tion ;  it  challenges  investigation ;  and  in  spite  of  numerous  attempts 

*  The  italics  are  not  ours. 


Um  T^^  ENGLISH  BIBLE. 

to  supersede  it,  has  hitherto  remained  unrivalled  in  thg  affections 
of  the  country.**     Whitaker. 

John  Taylor  of  Norwich,  an  Arian  in  sentiment,  but  a  very 
learned  man,  and  author  of  an  excellent  Hebrew  and  English  Con- 
cordance, bears  a  still  more  striking  testimony.  "  In  the  space  of 
one  [two]  hundred  years,  learning  may  have  received  considerable 
improvements  ;  and  by  that  means  some  inaccuracies  may  be 
found  in  a  translation  more  than  a  [two]  hundred  years  old.  But 
you  may  rest  fully  satisfied,  that  as  our  translation  is  in  itself  by 
far  the  most  excellent  book  in  our  language,  so  it  is  a  pure  and 

{)lentiful  fountain  of  divine  knowledge,  giving  a  true,  clear,  and 
ull  account  of  the  divine  dispensations,  and  of  the  gospel  of  our 
salvation,  insomuch  that  whoever  studies  the  Bible,  the  English 
Bible,  is  sure  of  gaining  that  knowledge  and  faith,  which,  if  duly 
applied  to  the  heart  and  conversation,  will  infallibly  guide  him  to 
eternal  life." 

**  That  these  [Lowth,  Blayney,  Horsley,  and  Newcome]  and 
other  sound  scholars  have  materially  assisted  the  cause,  and  pro- 
duced many  valuable  elucidations  of  particular  passages,  is  grate- 
fully acknowledged  by  all  who  are  acquainted  with  their  works. 
Yet  with  all  the  respect  which  we  feel  for  their  labours,  we  ven- 
ture to  express  a  doubt  whether  any  new  translation  of  even  a 
sinde  book  of  Scripture  has  appeared  since  the  publication  of  the 
authorized  version,  which  taken  as  a  whole  has  come  up  to  its 
standard,  either  for  the  general  fidelity  and  correctness  with  which 
it  conveys  the  sense  of  the  original,  or  the  dignity,  simplicity,  and 
propriety  of  language  in  which  that  sense  is  conveyed."  London 
Quarterly. 

**  Those  who  have  compared  most  of  the  European  translations 
with  the  original,  have  not  scrupled  to  say  that  the  English  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible,  made  under  the  direction  of  James  I.,  is  the 
most  accurate  and  faithful  of  the  whole.  Nor  is  this  its  only 
praise :  the  translators  have  seized  the  very  spirit  and  soul  of  the 
original,  and  expressed  this  almost  everywhere  with  pathos  and 
energy.  Besides,  our  translators  have  not  only  made  a  standard 
translation,  but  they  have  made  their  translation  the  standard  of 
the  language.  The  English  tongue  in  their  day  was  not  equal  to 
•uch  a  work ;  but  God  enabled  them  to  stand  as  upon  Mount 
Smai,  and  crane  up  their  country's  language  to  the  dignity  of  the 
originals,  so  that  after  the  lapse  of  two  hundred  years  the  English 
Bible  IS,  with  very  few  exceptions,  the  standard  of  the  purity  and 
excellence  of  the  English  tongue.  The  original,  from  which  it 
was  taken,  is  alone  superior  to  the  Bible  translated  by  the  author- 
ity of  King  James."     Adam  Clarke. 

-It  IS  a  striking  beauty  in  our  English  Bible,  that  though  the 
language  is  always  elegant  and  nervous,  and  for  the  most  part 
very  harmonious,  the  words  are  all  plain  and  common  ;  no  affecta- 
tion of  learned  terms,  or  of  words  of  Greek  and  Latin  etymology." 
Dr.  James  Beattie.  ^ 


THE    ENGLISH   BIBLE.  525 

"  Equally  remarkable  for  the  general  fidelity  of  its  construc- 
tion, and  the  magnificent  simplicity  of  its  language."     Dr.  Gray. 

"  We  are  yet  disposed  to  object  to  that  part  [of  this  classifica- 
tion] which  represents  the  first  introduction  of  soft,  graceful,  and 
idiomatic  English  as  not  earlier  than  the  period  of  the  restoration. 
It  is  as  old  at  least  as  Chaucer.  The  English  Bible  is  full  of  it ; 
and  it  is  the  most  common,  as  well  as  the  most  beautiful,  of  the 
many  languages  spoken  by  Shakspeare."  Edinburgh  Review,  no 
partial  witness  surely.* 

"  General  fidehty  to  its  original  is  hardly  more  its  characteristic 
than  sublimity  itself  ....  it  is  still  considered  the  standard  of  our 
tongue  ....  The  English  language  acquired  new  dignity  by  it." 
Dr.  I.  White,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  University  of 
Oxford. 

"  The  language  of  our  present  version  has  the  full  tide  of  popular 
opinion  strongly  in  its  favour ;  it  exhibits  a  style  appropriately 
biblical,  and  is  distinguished  by  a  general  simplicity  of  expression, 
which  the  most  uncultivated  mind  may  comprehend,  and  the  most 
cultivated  admire."! 

To  these  numerous,  but  we  trust  not  uninteresting  testimonies, 
we  will  merely  add  one  of  cis-Atlantic  growth.  It  is  that  of 
Fislier  Ames;  than  whom  a  better  writer  of  English  has  never 
appeared  in  this  country.  In  an  essay  of  his,  urging  the  impor- 
tance of  using  the  Bible  as  a  school  book,  he  says,  "  In  no  book  is 
there  so  good  English,  so  pure  and  so  elegant ;  and  by  teaching  all 
the  same  book,  they  will  speak  alike,  and  the  Bible  will  justly 
remain  the  standard  of  language  as  well  as  of  faith.  A  barbarous 
provincial  jargon  will  be  banished,  and  taste,  corrupted  by  pom- 
pous Johnsonian  aflectation,  will  be  restored." 

The  want  of  pure  English  idiom,  then,  is  still  less  apparent  than 
the  want  of  fidelity  to  the  original.  The  Koran  has  not  been  a 
more  acknowledged  classic  among  the  Arabs,  nor  Luther's  Bible 
among  the  Germans,  than  has  the  English  Bible  been  in  English 
literature.  It  has  done  more  for  the  English  language  than  the 
whole  French  Academy,  with  their  incomparable  Dictionary,  can 
ever  do  for  the  French.  "  It  is  impossible,"  says  a  sensible  writer 
in  Blackwood's  Magazine,J  "  to  reflect  upon  the  incalculable  influ- 
ence which  the  free  use  of  this  noble  version  by  a  great  nation  in 
an  affectionate  and  thankful  spirit  for  centuries  must  have  had 
upon  the  character  of  both  people  and  literature ;  and  further,  upon 
what  would  have  been  the  diminished  value  of  the  boon,  even  for 
those  who  might  have  enjoyed  it,  had  it  been  delayed  to  a  much 
later  period  ;  without  acknowledging  a  providence  in  the  choice  of 
the  time  when,  and  the  instruments  by  whose  means,  this  benefit 
was  conferred.     As  yet  the  language  was  in  a  gradual  process  of 

•  October,  1835,  page  121,  American  edition. 

t  From  an  exceedingly  able  Tract  in  the  first  volume  of  the  former  series  of  the 
Princeton  Review,  on  the  subject  of  a  new  translation  of  the  Bible. 
X  November,  1835,  page  676. 


526  THE   ENGLISH   BIBLE. 

formation.  Ductile,  various,  and  manly,  confined  within  no 
acknowledged  rules,  and  checked  by  no  fear  of  criticism,  it  was  in 
a  slate  admirably  fitted  to  become  the  faithful  mirror  of  the 
national  character,  which  the  publication  of  that  great  work  was 
calculated  so  deeply  to  effect."  Indeed,  when  we  reflect  that  it  has 
been  regarded  as  a  model  of  correct  expression  by  the  ablest  critics, 
that  it  has  been  more  read  than  any  other  English  book,  that  the 
nature  of  its  subjects  and  the  character  of  the  people  have  given 
it  more  than  any  other  book  a  hold  upon  the  imagination  and  the 
feelings,  we  do  not  wonder  at  the  extent  to  which  its  language  has 
become  the  basis  both  of  prose  and  verse,  and  even  to  some  extent 
of  common  conversation.  The  Bible  is  not  subject  to  the  fluctua- 
tions of  taste.  Shakspeare  may  become  unfashionable,  as  Milton 
is  now,  except  in  theory.  But  the  Bible  will  always  be  read,  and 
read  by  the  multitude  who  are  the  great  corrupters  of  language. 
Its  words  will  always  be  those  most  upon  the  popular  lip.  Not 
only  therefore  will  it  remain  "  a  well  of  English  undefiled,"  but 
there  is  a  certainty  that  its  pure  waters  will  be  resorted  to  by  all 
the  hundreds  of  millions  who  shall  be  born  within  the  reach  of 
British  and  American  influence  till  the  end  of  time. 


ESSAY   XVIII. 


OXFORD   ARCHITECTURE/ 


These  works  are  among  the  fruits  of  the  increased  interest  which 
has  been  felt,  within  a  few  years,  in  the  Architecture  of  the  Mid- 
dle Ages.  The  singular  fate  which  the  Gothic  Architecture  has 
undergone  would  warrant  the  inference  that  it  gives  expression  to 
no  general  and  permanent  truth,  were  we  not  in  a  condition  to 
account  satisfactorily  for  the  mutations  to  which  it  has  been  subject. 
Appearing  in  the  early  part  of  the  twelfth  century,  it  gave  such  a 
distinct  and  full  utterance  to  some  general  sentiment  of  the  age, 
that  it  spread  at  once  over  the  whole  of  Christian  Europe.  So 
rapid  was  its  transmission  through  Germany,  France,  Italy,  Spain, 
and  England,  that  it  remains  to  this  day  a  matter  of  doubt  where 
it  originated,  the  most  laborious  and  minute  researches  having 
failed  to  establish  clearly  a  priority  of  date  for  the  structures  of 
any  one  of  these  countries. 

rrior  to  the  introduction  of  this  style,  there  was  no  prevalent 
style  of  church  architecture.  The  Roman  Architecture,  in  the 
course  of  its  protracted  dissolution,  had  assumed,  in  the  East,  the 
form  of  what  has  been  termed  the  Byzantine  style ;  in  Italy  and 
Germany  it  had  degenerated  into  the  Lombard,  and  in  England 
into  the  Norman  style.  The  churches  erected  in  these  several 
countries  prior  to  the  twelfth  century,  involved  no  common  princi- 
ple. Indeed,  that  which  chiefly  marks  them  all  is  the  entire  want 
of  any  principle.  There  was  no  other  general  likeness  among 
them  than  what  arose  from  a  certain  resemblance  in  the  details, 
and  from  the  entire  absence  of  any  general  idea  by  which  these 
details  might  be  blended  into  unity.  The  church  of  St.  Sophia  at 
Constantinople,  the  duomo  of  Pisa,  and  the  Durham  Cathedral, 
may  be  taken  as  the  representatives  of  the  Byzantine,  the  Lom- 

•  Originally  published  in  1844  in  review  of  the  following  works : 

1.  "  Remarks  on  English  Churches,  and  on  the  expediency  of  rendering  Sepul- 
chral Memorials  subservient  to  pious  and  Christian  uses.  By  J.  H.  Markland,  F.R.S. 
and  S.A." 

2.  "  A  Glossary  of  Terms  used  in  Grecian,  Roman,  Italian,  and  Gothic  Architec- 
ture.'* 

3.  "  Anglican  Church  Architecture,  with  some  remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  Furni- 
ture.   By  James  Burr,  Architect 


528  OXFOBD   ARCHITECTIJBE. 

bard,  and  the  Norman  styles ;  and  if  these  buildings  be  compared 
together  it  will  be  found  that,  although  they  resemble  each  other 
in  the  use  of  the  semicircular  arch  as  the  principle  of  support  and 
some  other  Roman  elements,  and  hence  may  be  classed  together 
under  the  general  term  Romanesque,  they  are  nevertheless  exceed- 
ingly unlike  in  their  general  effect.     Though  they  all  employed 
suDStantially  the  same  elements  of  construction,  the  round  arch 
supported  by  columns  fashioned  in  their  proportions  and  ornaments 
after  the  classical  architecture,  pilasters,  cornices,  and  entablatures 
borrowed  from  the  remains  of  Roman  art,  openings  in  the  wall 
whether  for  doors  or  windows  that  were  small,  comparatively  few 
in  number  and  subordinate  to  the  wall,  vaulted  ceilings,  and  domes ; 
yet  as  these  constructive  elements  were  subject  to  no  law,  bound 
together  by  no  one  principle  which  assigned  to  each  its  place  and 
function,  and  formed  them  into  one  organic  whole,  it  was  inevita- 
ble that  they  should  be  mingled  together  in  different  combinations 
and  proportions  according  to  the  capricious  fancy  of  each  builder. 
Hence  each  country  had,  with  some  general  resemblance  to  others, 
its  own  peculiar  style  of  building ;  and  no  one  style  was  capable 
of  transcending  provincial  limits,  and  giving  law  to  the  world, 
because  no  one  rested  upon  any  general  principle  of  beauty  or  truth. 
No  sooner,  however,  did  the  Gothic  Architecture  appear  than  it 
diffused  itself  through  all  lands  where  Christian  churches  were  built. 
This  rapid  and  universal  diffusion,  however  it  may  be  historically 
accounted  for,  must  find  its  ultimate  explanation  in  the  palpable 
truth  of  this  style  of  architecture.     Instead  of  being  like  the  styles 
which  preceded  it,  an  aggregation  of  materials  and  forms  of  con- 
struction, associated  and  arranged  upon  no  higher  principle  than 
that  of  building  a  commodious,  shapely  and  convenient  edifice,  the 
Gothic  style  was  a  connected  and  organic  whole,  possessed  of  a 
vital  principle  which  rejected  everything  that  was  heterogeneous, 
and  assimilated  all  that  it  embraced.     Hence  its  power  and  its 
popularity. 

After  prevailing  for  a  period  of  about  three  centuries,  this 
style  was  displaced  by  the  revived  classical  architecture  of  the 
Italian  school.  Then  came  the  days  in  which  such  men  as  Sir 
Henry  Wotton  stigmatized  the  glorious  fanes  which  had  been 
erected  in  this  style  as  Gothic  or  barbarous,  and  Evelyn  con- 
demned it  as  a  "  certain  fantastical  and  licentious  mode  of  build- 
ing," and  the  son  and  biographer  of  Sir  Christopher  Wren  sneered 
at  the  inimitable  ceiling  of  Henry  Vll.th's  Chapel,  as  "  lace  and 
other  cut  work,  and  crinkle  crankle."  The  architecture  nick- 
named the  Gothic  and  ever  since  designated  by  that  term,  was 
then  despised  and  cast  out  as  whimsical,  lawless,  and  absurd,  and 
men  began  to  build  after  a  fashion  that  was  deemed  the  method  of 
the  ancients.  This  classical  Architecture  had  its  consummation  as 
in  the  cathedrals  of  St.  Paul's  at  London  and  St.  Peter's  at  Rome. 
It  is  distinguished,  even  beyond  the  Romanesque  architecture,  by 
the  want  of  any  general  principle  of  unity.     The  Greek  pediment 


OXFORD    ARCHITECTURE.  529 

or  something  which  was  intended  to  imitate  that  chief  and  crown- 
ing feature  of  the  Greek  temple,  together  with  columnar  ordinances 
fitted  to  receive  and  sustain  vertical  thrusts,  is  found  in  connexion 
with  round  arches,  domes,  vaulted  ceilings,  cupolas  and  spires. 
That  this  style  was  capable,  in  the  hands  of  such  men  as  Sir  Chris- 
topher Wren  and  Michael  Angelo,  of  producing  an  imposing  inte- 
rior effect  by  the  expansive  dome  hung  high  over  head,  and  by  the 
picturesque  combination  of  the  other  interior  elements  of  an 
immense  structure,  we  have  sufficient  evidence  in  St.  Paul's  and 
St.  Peters ;  but  that  it  was  utterly  incapable  of  producing  the 
higher  effects  of  architectural  excellence  will  be  equally  evident 
to  any  one  who  will  take  the  several  parts  of  either  of  those  struc- 
tures, and  attempt  to  establish  the  relation  of  unity  between  them. 
This  attempt  will  inevitably  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  building  have  no  mutual  bond  of  coherence. 
They  are  held  together  by  the  law  of  gravitation,  they  are 
cemented  by  mortar,  but  there  are  no  mutual  relations  which  make 
them  coalesce.  The  effects  which  they  produce  are  due,  in  chief 
part,  to  the  purely  sensuous  phenomena  of  immense  magnitude, 
and  picturesqueness  of  combination  and  arrangement.  The 
moment  that  we  attempt  to  discover  that  unity  without  which  no 
work  of  art  can  fill  and  satisfy  the  mind,  we  find  only  discrepan- 
cies and  contradictions. 

The  age  that  rejected  the  Gothic  architecture  showed  thus  its 
incompetency  either  to  condemn  or  to  a  ppro  ve.  Had  their  censure  of 
the  Gothic  been  founded  upon  any  principles  truly  applicable  as  a 
criterion  of  excellence,  we  should  have  been  compelled  to  admit 
that  this  style  of  architecture  expressed  something  that  was  pecu- 
liar to  the  three  centuries  within  which  it  originated  and  died. 
The  fact  of  its  death,  if  it  could  not  be  shown  that  it  was  inflicted 
in  one  of  those  freaks  of  fancy  which  whole  communities  and 
generations  of  men  sometimes  exhibit,  would  of  course  show 
that  however  fitted  it  may  have  been  to  give  outward  expression 
to  the  mind  of  Europe  during  the  three  centuries  of  its  prevalence, 
it  embodied  no  universal  principles.  But  when  we  examine  the 
reasons  assigned  for  its  condemnation,  we  find  that  they  rest  upon 
conventional  and  affected  stands  of  judgment ;  and  when  we  look 
at  the  buildings  which  were  thought  worthy  to  supplant  the  Gothic, 
we  see  that  they  are  in  every  respect,  whether  of  constructive  art 
or  ideal  perfection,  immeasurably  inferior  to  their  predecessors. 
We  feel  warranted,  therefore,  in  drawing  the  conclusion  that  the 
displacement  of  the  Gothic  architecture  was  perfectly  analogous 
to  those  changes  which  literature  has  sometimes  undergone,  when 
partial  and  contracted  hypotheses  have  for  a  season  supplanted 
with  their  technical  canons  of  criticism,  a  true  and  universal  method. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  revival  of  the  Gothic  was  con- 
temporaneous with  the  restoration  of  the  true  principles  of  the 
Greek  architecture ;  and  that  they  both  date  from  the  period  in 
which  the  re-action  in  the  public  mind  from  the  mechanical  philo- 

34 


OXFORD   ARCHITECTURE, 


aophy  and  sceptical  spirit  of  the  last  century  begins  to  be  distinctly 
marked.  No  sooner  was  the  true  spirit  of  the  wonderful  remains 
of  Athenian  art  comprehended,  than  men  began  to  turn  to  the 
cathedrals  and  other  structures  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  find  in 
them  a  transcendent  beauty  and  power.  It  is  now  universally 
admitted  by  those  who  have  taken  the  pains  to  acquaint  them- 
selves with  the  matter,  that 

"  In  those  rich  cathedral  fanes 
(Gothic  ill-named)  a  harmony  results 
From  disunited  parts  ;  and  shapes  minute, 
At  once  distinct  and  blended,  boldly  form 
One  vast  majestic  whole." 

As  each  plant  in  the  vegetable  world  has  its  principle  of 
unity,  and  this  principle  has  its  signature  in  the  root,  the 
stem,  the  leaf,  the  flower,  and  the  fruit,  so  has  the  Gothic  architec- 
ture its  vital  principle  infused  into  every  part  of  the  structure  from 
the  foundation  stone  to  the  summit  of  its  towers  and  spires.  The 
foliations  of  the  arches,  the  tracery  of  the  windows,  and  the  scooped 
cells  of  the  branched  roof,  are  efflorescences  of  the  same  germinating 
principle  which  casts  out  the  massive  buttress,  and  throws  up  the 
towering  pinnacle. 

But  it  is  one  thing  to  see  and  feel  that  the  Gothic  architecture 

{)0ssesses  vitality,  and  a  very  different  thing  to  define  its  principle  of 
ife.  It  is  not  our  purpose,  on  the  present  occasion,  to  attempt  any 
exposition  of  this  matter.  All  that  we  desire,  for  the  end  we  have 
in  view,  is  that  it  should  be  admitted,  on  the  grounds  that  we  have 
assigned,  or  through  faith  in  those  who  have  studied  the  subject, 
that  there  is  a  true  art  developed  in  the  Gothic  architecture.  This 
being  admitted,  we  wish  to  show  that  Puseyism  displays  some 
of  its  most  marked  characteristics  in  its  attempts  to  comprehend 
and  practise  this  art. 

A  great  impulse  has  been  given  from  Oxford  to  the  study  of  Gothic 
architecture.  A  society  has  been  established  there  for  promoting 
its  studv»  and  a  number  of  works  on  the  subject  have  emanated  from 
the  Oxford  press.  Some  of  these  are  curiosities  in  their  way.  But 
without  dwelling  on  the  peculiarities  of  any,  we  wish  to  point 
attention  to  that  which  is  common  to  them  all. 

They  exhibit,  as  might  have  been  anticipated,  an  exclusive, 
narrow-minded  bigotry,  in  favour  of  one  particular  style  of  archi- 
tecture, in  connexion  with  utter  ignorance  of  every  other.  The 
author  of  the  Glossary,  which  is  an  elaborate,  and  in  many  respects, 
a  valuable  work,  professes  to  explain  the  terms  used  in  Grecian  and 
Roman  as  well  as  Gothic  architecture ;  but  he  seldom  ventures 
beyond  his  beloved  Gothic  without  betraying  the  most  surprising 
and  often  ludicrous  ignorance.  We  refer,  for  illustration,  lo  his 
definition  of  the  term  cymatium,  in  which  no  less  than  seven  appli- 
cations of  this  term  are  given,  every  one  of  which  is  not  only 
wrong,  but  so  absurdly  wrong  that  it  is  impossible  to  read  them 


I 


OXFORD    ARCHITECTURE.  531 

with  a  grave  face.  What  is  still  more  unpardonable  than  this,  he 
confounds  the  echinus,  the  only  curved  moulding  that  entered  into 
the  structure  of  the  Parthenon,  with  the  tasteless  omlo  of  the 
Romans,  and  then  confounds  both  of  these  with  the  egg  and  dart 
sculpture  with  which  they  were  sometimes  ornamented.  Nor 
have  we  been  able  to  find  a  single  article  in  the  book  upon  any 
subject  connected  with  Grecian  architecture,  which  is  not  either 
grossly  erroneous,  or  so  defective  as  to  be  worthless,  while  upon 
all  the  details  of  the  Gothic,  it  is  full,  clear,  and  for  the  most  part,  * 
correct.  The  same  character  runs  through  the  other  works  which 
we  have  placed  at  the  head  of  our  article.  They  are  all  one-sided. 
We  have  no  right  to  expect  that  treatises  on  English  Church 
Architecture,  like  that  of  Mr.  Barr,  should  contain  an  exposition  of 
the  principles  of  Greek  architecture,  but  we  have  a  right  to  expect 
that  in  their  allusions  to  it  they  would  not  betray  such  ignorance 
as  to  satisfy  us  that  their  devotion  to  the  Gothic  is  a  blind  and 
unintelligent  preference.  He  who  commends  to  the  world  any 
particular  style  of  architecture,  and  while  in  the  act  of  doing  so, 
shows  that  he  has  never  appreciated  the  spirit  of  beauty  that  dwells 
in  the  temples  of  the  Athenians,  can  scarcely  hope  to  win  the 
public  confidence  as  an  arbiter  of  taste.  The  exclusiveness  which 
confines  the  attention  of  the  architectural  bigot  to  one  style,  musv 
of  course  prevent  him  from  fully  comprehending  even  that  one. 
Art  is  jealous  of  her  secrets,  and  they  can  be  won  from  her  only  by 
a  fearless  and  catholic  confidence.  The  man  whose  mind  is  nar- 
rowed down  to  the  interests  of  a  party  or  a  sect  must  be  content 
to  remain  ignorant  of  them.  He  who  despises  the  Parthenon,  or 
looks  upon  it  with  cold  indifference,  can  be  nothing  but  a  worship- 
per of  stones  in  York  Minster. 

Hence  we  should  expect  to  find,  as  is  the  actual  fact,  that  these 
works  betray  an  inadequate  comprehension  of  the  true  meaning  and 
spirit  of  Gothic  Architecture.  In  describing  the  separate  parts  of  a 
Gothic  edifice  and  the  actual  construction  of  English  cathedrals  and 
churches  they  are  sufliciently  accurate,  but  it  is  evident  that  they 
have  failed  to  seize  fully  the  law  which  makes  the  parts  members  of  a 
whole.  The  traditional  authority  of  the  fathers  of  English  archi- 
tecture is  their  source  of  information  and  their  ultimate  bar  of 
appeal.  Thus  Mr.  Barr  says,  "  when  designing  a  church,  it  is  by 
no  means  suflicient  that  we  borrow  the  details  of  an  old  building, 
unless  we  likewise  preserve  its  general  proportions  and  canonical 
distribution."  He  does  not  here  nor  elsewhere  venture  to  raise 
the  inquiry  whether  the  **  old  building"  may  not  itself  be  faulty 
in  some  of  its  proportions ;  he  nowhere  hints  at  the  possibility 
of  our  obtaining  such  an  idea  of  the  interior  law  of  the 
Gothic  architecture  in  which  its  essence  is  comprised,  as  may 
enable  us  to  discriminate  between  diflferent  old  buildings,  and, 
without  copying  servilely  any  one,  combine  the  excellences  of 
several,  or  even  originate  a  design  in  independence  of  them  all. 
He  who  begs  thus  pusillanimously  from  the  mighty  masters  of  old, 


532  OXFORD    ARCHITECTURE. 

no  matter  how  magnificent  may  be  the  gifts  he  receives,  wiB 
show  his  beggarly  nature  through  them  all.  It  is  not  by  copying 
the  proportions  of  old  buildings  that  we  can  hope  to  rival  them, 
but  by  drinking  in  the  spirit  of  those  proportions  until  a  well- 
spring  of  living  beauty  is  opened  within  us. 

The  faithfulness  with  which  the  appeal  to  traditional  authority 
is  carried  out  in  these  works,  is  truly  remarkable.  They  talk  in 
good  set  terms  often  of  the  Gothic  style,  and  yet  always  return 
'with  undeviating  uniformity  to  the  authority  of  the  fathers.  Whe- 
ther they  recommend  any  particular  disposition  of  the  chief 
archilcciural  members  of  the  structure,  or  the  use,  among  its 
minor  adornments,  of"  the  Cross,  the  Holy  Name,  the  emblems  of 
the  Blessed  Triniiy,  and  other  mystical  devices,"  the  reason  given 
is  not  that  these  things  flow  out  naturally  from  the  great  idea 
which  governs  the  structure,  but  they  "  adorned  our  old  ecclesias- 
tical edifices." 

In  describing  the  appropriate  doorway  of  a  Gothic  church,  Mr. 
Barr  says,  "  In  England  the  doorways  of  the  cathedrals  and  other 
great  churches  are  seldom  features  of  that  magnitude  and  import- 
ance which  they  are  in  the  same  class  of  ecclesiastical  structures 
on  the  continent,  and  it  is  always  advisable  to  preserve  as  much 
as  possible  the  distinctive  peculiarities  of  Anglican  church  archi- 
tecture." This  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  whole.  The  end  aimed  at 
is  not  to  cultivate  a  true  and  vital  architecture,  but  to  preserve 
the  peculiarities  of  English  architecture.  The  true  question  at 
issue,  in  the  case  stated,  was  not,  what  was  the  practice  of  English 
architects,  but  what  would  best  harmonize  with,  and  assist  in  carry- 
ing out  the  general  idea  of  the  Gothic  style.  In  France  and  Ger- 
many the  doorways  are  of  such  an  imposing  height  and  magni- 
tude, that  they  constitute  a  very  important  feature  of  the  west 
front;  in  England,  on  the  contrary,  they  are  comparatively 
diminutive  and  insignificant.  Which  of  these  two  different  cha- 
racters ought  to  be  given  to  the  doorway  of  a  modern  Gothic 
church  in  England  or  elsewhere  ?  If  the  question  is  to  be  decided 
by  the  obvious  impression  on  the  feelings,  let  any  man  compare 
the  west  front  of  York  Minster,  or  Salisbury  Cathedral,  w.th 
that  ot  the  Amiens  or  Rheims  Cathedral,  and  he  will  not  hesi- 
tate n  moment  to  decide  in  favour  of  the  latter.  But  the  only 
adequate  m.  thod  of  deciding  such  a  question,  is  to  ascertain  what 
there  is  common  to  a  1  these  structures  that  differ  from  each  other 
in  some  of  their  details  ;  what  is  it  which,  notwithstanding  their 
circumstantial  disagreements,  gives  to  them  all  a  sameness  of  ex- 
pression ;  what  is  there  in  them  that  may  be  taken  away,  and  what 
that  may  not  be  taken  away  without  destroying  their  character. 
When  lhe8<»  questions  have  been  satisfactorilv  answered  we  sh  ill 
be  possessed  not  of  English,  French,  or  German  architecture,  but 
of  the  essence  of  them  all,  and  we  shall  then  be  at  no  loss  to 
decide  between  the  comparative  merits  of  those  features  in  which 


OXFORD    ARCHITECTURE.  633 

they  differ.  To  decide,  as  Mr.  Barr  does,  is  to  substitute  authority 
for  reason. 

In  like  manner  Mr.  Markland,  in  urging  the  pious  and  benevo- 
lent to  bestow  their  gifts  in  the  erection  or  improvement  of 
some  particular  part  of  church  edifices,  cites  with  approbation, 
in  illustration  of  his  views,  the  Minstrel's  column  in  the  church 
of  St.  Mary's,  Beverly.  This  column  is  a  pier  with  clustered 
shafts,  furnished  with  a  double  set  of  capitals  placed  at  a  suffi- 
cient distance,  the  one  above  the  other,  to  contain  a  group  of 
figures,  with  musical  instruments,  representing  the  minstrels  who 
erected  it.  If  the  Gothic  architecture  be  nothing  more  than  a 
compendium  of  traditional  teachings,  then  it  is  only  a  waste  of  time 
to  discuss  any  question  connected  with  it;  but  if  it  have  any 
fixed  and  certain  principles,  then  surely  it  ought  to  have  been 
shown  that  this  "  Minstrel  column"  was  in  keeping  with  those 
principles,  before  it  was  presented  as  an  example  to  be  imitated  in 
the  present  age.  We  believe  that  the  Gothic  architecture  has  a 
real  significancy  quite  other  than  that  which  is  derived  from  any 
associations  connected  with  it,  and  we  are  sure  that  for  the 
expression  of  whatever  may  be  its  purpose,  it  is  dependent 
chiefly  upon  its  predominating  vertical  line.  In  the  interior, 
which  is  of  necessity  the  most  important  part  of  a  Gothic  edifice, 
almost  its  only  means  of  manifesting  this  vertical  tendency  is 
through  the  pier  shafts  of  the  arches,  and  the  vaulting  shafts 
of  the  ceiling.  To  break  the  continuousness  of  these  shafts 
for  the  purpose  of  receiving  a  set  of  statues  is  to  destroy 
the  only  significancy  of  the  shaft.*  Whatever  may  be  its 
goodliness  in  other  respects,  as  a  part  of  a  Gothic  interior,  it 
becomes,  when  thus  broken,  an  unmeaning  appendage.  Such 
admiration  as  this,  of  the  Gothic  architecture,  is  very  much  akin  to 
that  of  the  good  old  lady  who  was  so  much  moved  by  the  peculiar 
eloquence  of  the  word  Mesopotamia.  Mesopotamia  was  a  good 
old  word,  it  belonged  to  the  time  of  the  patriarchs,  and  being 
delivered  moreover  in  a  truly  unctuous  tone,  it  imparted  a  savour 
to  the  whole  sermon  into  which  it  entered. 

As  the  Tractarians  rest  much  in  outward  forms,  which  are  no 
necessary  or  rational  part  of  a  spiritual  system  of  religion,  and 
which,  being  perfectly  arbitrary  and  conventional,  cannot  but 
hinder  the  mind  in  its  progress  towards  the  perception  of  any 
great  central  truth ;  so,  in  art,  the  same  disposition  is  manifested 
to  divorce  the  form  from  the  substance,  the  body  from  the  spirit 
which  animates  it ;  and  then,  when  the  whole  has  been  disinte- 
grated, to  assign  a  superstitious  value  to  each  separate  part. 
Each  doorway  must  be  made  to  hint  darkly  at  some  mystery,  the 
storied  windows  must  deliver  up  their  venerable  traditions,  and 
the  shafts  and  arches,  the  pulpit,  the  altar  and  the  font,  the  quaint 
carvings  and  mystical  devices,  must  all  be  arranged  in  accordance 
with  some  dream  or  vision.  As  the  religion  of  such  men  must  be, 
in  a  good  degree,  made  up  of  outward  institutions  and  rites,  which, 


g34  OXFORD    ARCHITECTURE. 

having  lost  their  only  rational  naeaning  through  their  disconnexion 
from  3ie  inner  truth  of  the  system  to  which  they  belong,  have  a 
superstitious  efficacy  attributed  to  them,  so  their  architecture  is  an 
assemblage  of  parts  that,  having  no  inward  principle  of  unity,  can 
only  exist  through  some  mystical  meaning  attached  to  them.  Their 
art  is  no  living  reality,  but  an  assemblage  of  holy  relics. 

For  the  same  reason  that  we  should  be  unwilling  that  any  man 
should  judge  of  religion  by  the  form  which  it  assumes  in  the  teach- 
ings and  practice  of  the  Oxford  Tractarians,  we  would  desire  also, 
to  sec  the  noble  art  of  architecture  rescued  from  their  hands. 
Architecture,  properly  understood,  is  undoubtedly,  as  Coleridge 
pronounced  it,  the  most  difficult  of  the  fine  arts,  "  it  involves  all  the 
powers  of  design,  and  is  sculpture  and  painting  inclusively ;  it 
shows  the  greatness  of  man,  and  should  at  the  same  lime  teach 
him  humility."  It  exhibits  the  greatest  difference  from  nature,  that 
can  exist  in  works  of  art,  and  requires,  therefore,  thoughtful  and 
earnest  study  for  the  discovery  and  appreciation  of  its  principles. 
To  build  a  convenient  and  ornate  edifice,  whether  for  domestic  or 
religious  purposes,  is  an  easy  matter  ;  but  to  dispose  building  mate- 
rials in  such  forms  as  shall  be  expressive  of  intellectual  purposes 
and  sentiments,  this  is  a  task  that  demands,  for  its  adequate  dis- 
charge, other  attainments  than  technical  rules,  old  traditions,  and 
the  narrow  dogmas  of  a  sect.  The  living  and  life-producing  ideas 
of  this  art  are  to  be  acquired  only  through  "  the  perception  of 
those  relations  which  alone  are  beautiful  and  eternal,  whose  prime 
concords  can  be  proved,  but  whose  deeper  mysteries  can  only  be 
felt."* 

The  Gothic  architecture  is  one  of  the  most  wonderful  creations 
of  the  human  mind.  The  more  we  study  it,  the  more  are  we  lost 
in  admiration  at  the  skill  which  has  succeeded  in  employing  such 
an  endless  multiplicity  of  details  as  enter  into  a  Gothic  struoture, 
without  sacrificing  the  essential  unity  of  the  whole.  The  idea 
which  evolved  it,  seems  to  luxuriate  in  the  greatest  abundance  of 
forms,  all  of  which  are  animated,  and  all  in  the  same  spirit.  It  is 
of  course  symbolical,  as  all  true  art  must  be.  Any  object  which 
does  not  irresistibly  lead  the  mind  beyond  itself,  and  inspire  a 
feeling  due  not  to  the  qualities  of  the  object  but  to  something  far 
greater  and  better  than  is  suggested  by  it,  is  no  work  of  art.  But 
the  symbolism  of  Gothic  architecture,  as  of  all  characteristic  art,  is 
dependent  upon  no  accidental  associations,  or  conventional  ap- 
pointments. It  is  not  the  work  of  a  man,  who,  having  agreed  with 
his  fellows,  that  certain  signs  shall  represent  certain  objects  or 
qualilifs,  proceeds  to  use  the  power  with  which  they  have  endowed 
him ;  but  of  one  who  having  worshipped  beside  the  fountain  of 
primal  beauty,  has  drunk  in  those  essential  principles  of  harmony 
which  must  speak  to  the  hearts  of  all  men.     The  forms  that  enter 

•  Goethe'8  Works,  vol.  xxxix.,  p.  339. 


OXFORD    ARCHITECTURE.  535 

into  a  Gothic  cathedral  are  a  figured  language,  but  it  is  a  univer- 
sal language. 

How  preposterous,  then,  to  mix  up  with  this  natural  symbolism, 
deriving  its  efficacy  from  that  which  is  true  as  the  human  mind, 
and  permanent  as  the  race,  the  purely  technical  symbolism  of  any 
particular  creed  or  age  !  How  absurd  to  break  in  upon  the  har- 
mony that,  assimilating  to  itself  the  voice  of  each  of  its  manifold 
parts,  pours  forth  its  choral  symphonies  from  the  whole,  with  the 
crotchets  of  a  school  or  sect.  The  "  mystic  devices,"  for  which 
Mr.  Barr  pleads,  the  sacred  monogram,  the  vesica  pisciSy  and 
other  technical  inventions,  what  have  these  to  do  in  conjunction 
with  those  harmonious  forms  and  relations,  that,  partaking  of  the 
very  essence  of  beauty,  are  endowed  with  natural  and  indefeasi- 
ble power  to  awe,  to  subdue,  to  exalt,  to  refine  the  human  mind  ? 

It  may  easily  be  gathered  from  what  we  have  already  said,  that 
we  dissent  utterly  from  the  sentiment  often  expressed,  that  the 
Gothic  architecture  is  a  development  of  Papal  Christianity.  It  is 
indeed  a  religious  architecture,  as  every  other  true  style  has  been ; 
it  is,  in  some  sense,  a  Christian  architecture,  but  further  to  limit  its 
generality  is  to  despoil  it  of  its  glory  and  power.  Doubtless  an 
architecture  might  be  devised  which  would  be  an  appropriate 
symbol  of  Romanism.  So  also  we  might  construct  a  style  which 
would  fitly  represent  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  as  its  doc- 
trines and  practices  are  expounded  by  the  Oxford  Tractarians ; 
but  it  would  be  widely  diflferent  from  the  Gothic.  It  would  be  a 
style  which,  acknowledging  no  infallible  standards,  except  as  they 
are  interpreted  by  tradition,  would  copy  "  old  buildings  "  without 
daring  to  aspire  even  so  high  as  imitation.  It  would  of  course  fix 
attention  upon  external  forms,  rather  than  upon  the  thought  within. 
Hence  also  it  would  limit  its  views  of  mental  expression  to  the 
ideas  of  power  and  grandeur  through  which  the  mind  might  be 
overawed  and  reduced  to  an  unreasoning  submission.  It  would 
discourage  the  robust  and  manly  exercise  of  the  human  intellect, 
and  would  care  Uttle  therefore  for  strict  unity  and  severe  harmony, 
if  it  might  so  manage  the  details  as  to  produce  an  extemporane- 
ous impression  upon  the  beholder,  sufficiently  powerful  to  compel 
him  to  yield  a  slavish  obedience  to  authority.  The  deeper  myste- 
ries of  art  which  are  to  be  felt  only  by  those  who  have  understood 
its  "  prime  concords,"  would  be  altogether  beyond  its  reach.  But 
we  feel  little  interest  in  tracing  out  minutely  the  idea  of  an  Epis- 
copal art.  It  will  be  exhibited  in  its  concrete  form  whenever  the 
teachings  of  such  architects  as  Mr.  Barr  shall  have  been  carried 
thoroughly  into  practice. 


ESSAY    XIX. 

A  TREATISE  ON  EXPOSITORY  PREACHING. 

PUBLISHED  IN  1838. 


The  pulpit  discourses  of  Roman  Catholics  as  well  as  Protest- 
ants, during  several  centuries,  have  been  for  the  most  part  founded 
on  short  passages  of  Scripture  ;  commonly  single  verses,  and  oftener 
less  than  more.  This  has  become  so  prevalent,  that  in  most  trea- 
tises upon  the  composition  of  sermons  all  the  canons  of  homile- 
tics  presuppose  the  treatment  of  an  isolated  text.  We  are  not 
prepared  to  denounce  this  practice,  especially  when  we  consider 
the  treasury  of  sound  doctrine,  cogent  reasoning,  and  mighty 
eloquence,  which  is  embodied  in  productions  formed  on  this  model, 
and  call  to  mind  the  instances  in  which  such  discourses  have  been 
signally  owned  of  God  in  the  edification  of  his  church.  But  there 
is  still  another  method,  which,  though  less  familiar  to  ourselves,  was 
once  widely  prevalent,  and  is  rtcognised  and  approved  in  our 
Directory  for  Worship,  in  the  following  words :  "  it  is  proper  also 
that  large  portions  of  Scripture  be  sometimes  expounded,  and  par- 
ticularly improved  for  the  instruction  of  the  people  in  the  meaning 
and  use  of  the  sacred  oracles."*  And  it  may  not  be  out  of  place 
to  mention  here,  that  in  the  debates  of  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
there  were  more  than  a  few  members,  and  among  these  the  cele- 
brated Calamy,  who  maintained  with  earnestness,  that  it  was  no 
pari  of  the  minister's  duty  to  read  the  Scriptures  in  public  without 
ezpoft/tofi.t 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  in  an  age  in  which  so  much  is 
heard  against  creeds  and  systems  as  contradistinguished  from  the 
pure  text  of  Scripture,  and  in  which  sacred  hermeneutics  hold  so 
high  a  place  in  Theological  education,  we  should  have  allowed  the 
methodical  and  continued  exposition  of  the  Bible  to  go  almost  into 

•  Directory  for  Worship,  chap,  vi.,  §  2. 
t  Lighlfoot's  Works,  vol.  xiii.,  p.  36. 


A    TREATISE*  ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING.  537 

disuse.*  What  our  predecessors  practised  under  the  name  of  lectures 
is  ahnost  banished  from  the  pulpit.  It  is  against  this  exclusion  that 
we  now  propose  to  direct  our  argument.  And  in  what  may  be 
offered  in  the  sequel  we  ask  attention  to  this  statement  of  the  ques- 
tion as  limiting  our  purpose.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  decry  the  mode 
of  discoursing  which  prevails  in  our  churches.  We  freely  acknow- 
ledge its  many  excellences  and  rejoice  in  its  gracious  fruits ;  but 
■we  plead  in  behalf  of  another  and  an  older  method,  which  we 
lament  to  see  neglected  and  forsaken.  With  this  preface,  we  shall 
proceed  to  give  some  reasons  why  a  judicious  return  to  the  exposi- 
tory method  of  preaching  seems  to  us  to  be  desirable. 

1.  The  expository  method  of  preaching  is  the  most  obvious  and 
natural  way  of  conveying  to  the  hearers  the  import  of  the  sacred 
volume.  It  is  the  very  work  for  which  a  ministry  was  instituted, 
to  int<'rpret  the  Scriptures.  In  the  case  of  any  other  book,  we 
should  be  at  no  loss  in  what  manner  to  proceed.  Suppose  a  volume 
of  human  science  to  be  placed  in  our  hands  as  the  sole  manual,  text- 
book, and  standard,  which  we  were  expected  to  elucidate  to  a  public 
assembly  :  in  what  way  would  it  be  most  natural  to  go  to  work  ? 
Certainly  not,  we  think,  to  take  a  sentence  here,  and  a  sentence 
there,  and  upon  these  separate  portions  to  frame  one  or  two  dis- 
courses every  week.  No  interpreter  of  Aristotle,  of  Littleton,  of 
Puffendorf,  or  of  Paley,  ever  dreamed  of  such  a  method.  Nor  was 
it  adopted  in  the  Christian  church,  until  the  sermon  ceased  to  be 
regarded  in  its  true  notion,  as  an  explanation  of  the  Scripture,  and 
began  to  be  viewed  as  a  rhetorical  entertainment,  which  might 
afford  occasion  for  the  display  of  subtilty,  research,  and  eloquence. 

2.  The  expository  method  has  the  sanction  of  primitive  and 
ancient  usage.  In  the  Israelitish,  as  well  as  the  Christian  church, 
preaching  was  an  ordinary  mode  of  religious  instruction.  In  both 
It  was  justly  regarded  as  a  means  of  conducting  the  hearers  to  the 
knowledge  of  revealed  truth.  As  early  as  the  time  of  Ezra,  we  find 
that  the  reading  of  the  law  was  accompanied  with  some  kind  of  inter- 
pretation. In  the  synagogues,  after  the  reading  of  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  it  was  usual  for  the  presiding  officer  to  invite  such  as  were 
learned  to  address  the  people.  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  avai'ed  himself 
of  this  opportunity  to  deliver  one  of  his  most  remarkable  discourses  ; 
and  this  was  an  exposition  of  a  prophetic  passage.  The  apostle 
Paul  seems  also  to  have  made  portions  of  Scripture  the  basis  of 
his  addresses  in  the  synagogues.  But  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that 
the  preaching  of  the  apostolic  age,  when  the  speakers  were  divinely 
inspired,  should  be  in  all  respects  a  model  for  our  own  times.  It 
was  their  province  to  communicate  truth  under  inspiration  ;  it  is 
ours  to  interpret  what  has  thus  been  communicated.  The  early 
Christian  assemblies   naturally  adopted  the   simple  and  rational 

*  Although  the  subject  of  this  essay  may,  in  certain  particulars,  run  very  naturally 
into  that  of  critical  interpretation,  the  writer  begs  leave  to  disclaim  any  special  right 
to  dwell  upon  this  topic,  as  his  pursuits  have  not  led  him  into  the  field  of  hermeneu- 
tics,  any  further  than  the  performance  of  ordinary  ministerial  duty  required. 


538         A  TREATISE  ON  EXPOSITORY  PREACHING. 

methods  of  the  Jewish  synagogues ;  in  conformity  with  which  it 
was  an  essential  part  of  the  service  to  read  the  Scriptures.  Manu- 
scripts were  rare,  and  the  majority  of  believers  were  poor ;  and 
hence  the  church  assemblies  must  have  long  continued  to  be  the 
chief,  if  not  the  only,  sources  of  biblical  knowledge.  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, who  is  one  of  the  earliest  authorities  on  this  subject,  informs 
us  that  the  public  reading  of  the  text  was  followed  by  addresses, 
adapted  to  impress  the  subject  on  the  minds  of  the  hearers.* 
According  to  Neander,  who  may  be  considered  as  an  impartial 
judge  on  this  topic,  it  was  at  first  left  to  the  option  of  the  bishop 
what  portions  of  Scripture  should  be  read  ;  though  it  was  subse- 
quently made  necessary  to  adhere  to  certain  lessons,  which  were 
judged  appropriate  to  times  and  seasons.  Bingham  also  concedes 
that  the  lessons  were  sometimes  arbitrarily  appointed  by  the  bish- 
ops at  discretion.  Augustine  declares  that  he  sometimes  ordered  a 
lesson  to  be  read  which  harmonized  with  the  psalm  which  he  had 
been  expounding.f 

As  this  is  a  point  of  history  concerning  which  there  is  little 
room  for  question,  we  shall  content  ourselves  with  the  diligent, 
and,  as  we  believe,  impartial  deductions  of  Bingham  and  Neander. 
It  is  not  to  be  denied,  that  there  were,  even  in  the  early  ages,  seve- 
ral different  modes  of  preaching,  and  that  some  of  these  approached 
very  nearly  to  that  which  now  prevails  ;  yet  there  was  no  period 
during  which  the  expository  method  was  not  highly  prized  and 
extensively  practised.  These  discourses  were  very  frequent,  and 
often  flowed  from  the  intense  feeling  of  the  moment.  Pamphilus, 
in  his  Apology  for  Origen,  represents  this  great  teacher  as  dis- 
coursing extempore  almost  every  day.  The  same  frequency  of 
public  address  is  recorded  of  Chrysostom,  Augustine,  and  other 
fathers.  Their  sermons  were  taken  down  by  stenographers,  and 
in  such  of  them  as  are  extant  we  have  repeated  evidences  of  their 
familiar  and  unpremeditated  character.  Chrysostom,  for  instance, 
thus  breaks  forth,  in  one  of  his  homilies  on  Genesis :  "  I  am 
expounding  the  Scriptures;  yet  you  are  all  turning  your  eyes  from 
me  to  the  person  who  is  lighting  the  lamps.  What  negligence  !  to 
forsake  me,  and  fix  your  minds  on  him  !  For  I  am  lighting  a  fire 
from  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  in  my  tongue  is  a  burning  lamp  for 
instruction."  Augustine  also  tells  us,  in  one  of  his  homilies,  that  he 
had  not  thought  of  the  subject  on  which  he  actually  preached, 
until  the  reader  chanced  to  read  it  of  his  own  accord  in  the 
church.J 

The  two  greatest  preachers  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  churches, 
respectively,  afford  striking  examples  of  the  value  set  upon  expo- 
sition. Augustine  has  left  homilies  upon  the  Psalms,  the  Gospel  of 
John,  and  other  whole  books  of  Scripture.  Chrysostom,  in  like 
manner,  expounded  at  length  the  book  of  Genesis,  the  Psalms,  the 

•  Apolog  2       t  Aug.  in  Psalm  xc.  Ser.  ii.-Bingham,  Antiq.  B.  xiv.,  c.  iii.,  §  3. 
X  Bingham,  Book  xi?.,  chap,  iv.,  §  4. 


A   TREATISE    ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING.  539 

Gospels  of  Matthew  and  John,  and  all  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  His 
homilies  consist  usually  of  a  close  interpretation,  or  running  com- 
mentary, followed  by  an  Ethicon,  or  practical  application.  That 
biblical  exposition  was  recognised  as  the  end  of  preaching  seems 
clear  from  such  declarations  as  the  following :  "  If  any  one  assi- 
duously attend  public  worship,  even  without  reading  the  Bible  at 
home,  but  carefully  hearkening  here,  he  will  find  a  single  year  suf- 
ficient to  give  him  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  Scrip- 
tures."t  And  indeed  this  is  so  natural  a  result  of  the  catholic 
belief  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  great  storehouse  of  saving  truth, 
as  to  leave  us  in  some  surprise  at  the  neglect  into  which  this  direct 
exposition  of  the  authentic  records  has  fallen. 

When  we  look  into  the  history  of  England  during  the  thirteenth 
century,  we  find  that  two  modes  of  preaching  were  in  use,  neither 
of  these  being  that  which  we  now  employ.  In  the  first  place,  that 
of  Postulating,  which  was  identical  with  the  expository  method  ; 
secondly,  that  of  Declaring,  in  which  the  discourse  was  preceded 
by  a  declaration  of  the  subject,  without  the  citation  of  any  pas- 
sage of  Scripture.  When,  about  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth 
century,  the  method  of  preaching  from  insulated  texts,  with  subtile 
divisions  of  the  sermon,  was  introduced,  it  was  zealously  adopted 
by  the  younger  clergy,  and  became  extensively  popular  ;  while  it 
was  as  warmly  opposed  by  some  of  the  best  theologians  of  the 
age,  as  "  a  childish  playing  upon  words — destructive  of  true  elo- 
quence— tedious  and  unaffecting  to  the  hearers — and  cramping  the 
imagination  of  the  preacher."  Among  others,  it  found  an  able 
opponent  in  the  great  Roger  Bacon  ;  a  man  whom  we  can  never 
nnention  without  amazement  at  his  philosophical  attainments,  and 
veneration  for  his  character.  "  The  greatest  part  of  our  prelates," 
says  he,  "having  but  little  knowledge  in  divinity,  and  having  been 
little  used  to  preaching  in  their  youth,  when  they  become  bishops, 
and  are  sometimes  obliged  to  preach,  are  under  the  necessity  of 
begging  and  borrowing  the  sermons  of  certain  novices,  who  have 
invented  a  new  way  of  preaching,  by  endless  divisions  and  quib- 
blings,  in  which  there  is  neither  sublimity  of  style  nor  depth  of 
wisdom,  but  much  childish  trifling  and  folly,  unsuitable  to  the 
dignity  of  the  pulpit.  May  God  banish  this  conceited  and  artificial 
way  of  preaching  out  of  his  church  ;  for  it  will  never  do  any  good, 
nor  elevate  the  hearts  of  his  hearers  to  anything  that  is  great  or 

excellent."! 

"  The  opposition  to  this  new  method  of  preaching,"  says  Dr. 
Henry  in  his  History  of  England,  "  continued  through  the  whole 
of  the  fourteenth  and  part  of  the  fifteenth  century.  Dr.  Thomas 
Gascaigne,  Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Oxford,  tells  us  that  he 
preached  a  sermon  in  St.  Martin's  Church,  A.  D.  1450,  without  a 
text,  and  without  divisions,  declaring  such  things  as  he  thought 

*  Horn.  28,  in  Job.— Neander,  Der  heilige  Chrysostomus. 
t  R.  Bacon,  apud  Henry's  Hist.,  iv.,  366. 


510  A   TREATISE    ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING. 

would  be  useful  to  the  people.  Amongst  other  things  he  told  them, 
in  vindication  of  this  ancient  mode  of  preaching, — "  that  Dr. 
Augustine  had  preached  four  hundred  sermons  to  the  clergy  and 
people,  without  reading  a  text  at  the  beginning  of  his  discourse  ; 
and  that  the  way  of  preaching  by  a  text,  and  by  divisions,  was 
invented  only  about  A.  D.  1200,  as  appeared  from  the  authors  of 
the  first  sermons  of  that  kind.' " 

It  is  no  part  of  our  business  to  enter  further  into  this  investiga- 
tion, or  to  determine  critically  at  what  point  of  time  the  method  of 
preaching  from  insulated  verses  became  exclusively  prevalent  in 
the  church.  Wliatever  excellences  it  possesses,  and  there  are 
many,  can  derive  no  additional  dignity  from  the  origin  of  the 
method,  which  is  referable  to  a  period  by  no  means  the  most 
glorious  of  Christian  history.  When  the  light  of  divine  truth 
be^an  to  emerge  from  its  long  eclipse,  at  the  Reformation,  there 
were  few  things  more  remarkable,  than  the  universal  return  of 
evancelical  preachers  to  the  expository  method.  Book  after  book 
of  the  Scriptures  was  publicly  expounded  by  Luther,  and  the 
almost  daily  sermons  of  Calvin  were,  with  scarcely  any  exceptions, 
founded  on  passages  taken  in  regular  course  as  he  proceeded 
through  the  sacred  canon.  The  same  is  true  of  the  other  Reformers, 
particularly  in  England  and  Scotland. 

To  come  down  to  the  limes  of  the  Nonconformists  ;  while  it  is 
undoubtedly  true  that  they  sometimes  pursued  the  textual  method 
even  to  an  extreme  ;  preaching  many  discourses  on  a  single  verse ; 
it  is  no  less  true,  that  exposition  in  regular  course  was  considered 
a  necessary  part  of  ministerial  labour.  Hence  the  voluminous 
commentaries  on  single  books  with  which  the  press  groaned  during 
that  period.  Let  us  take  a  single  instance,  as  late  as  the  latter 
half  of  the  sixteenth  century,  in  the  person  of  Matthew  Henry, 
whom  it  is  difficult  to  refer  exclusively  to  the  era  of  the  elder  or 
the  later  Nonconformists.  We  may  suppose  his  practice  in  this 
particular  to  be  no  extreme  case.  Mr.  Henry  was  an  able  and 
laborious  preacher  from  single  texts,  but  it  was  by  no  means 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  expository  plan.  On  every  Lord's  day 
morning,  he  read  and  expounded  a  part  of  the  Old  Testament ; 
on  every  Lord's  day  afternoon  a  part  of  the  New  ;  in  both  instances 
proceeding  in  regular  order.  During  his  residence  in  Chester  he 
went  over  the  whole  Bible  in  this  exercise,  more  than  once.* 
Such  was  the  custom  of  our  forefathers  ;  and  in  the  prosecution 
of  such  a  plan,  we  need  not  wonder  that  they  found  the  body  of 
their  hearers  constantly  advancing  in  scriptural  attainments.  The 
sense  of  change,  and  change  without  improvement,  is  unavoidable 
when  we  come  down  to  our  own  times ;  in  which,  within  our 
immediate  knowledge,  there  are  not  a  dozen  ministers  who  make  the 
expounding  of  Scripture  any  part  of  their  stated  pulpit  exercises. 
Nay,   although  our  Directory  lor   Worship   declares   expressly 

•  Williams,  Life  of  ifenry,  c.  x. 


A    TREATISE    ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING.  541 

that  "the  reading  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  the  congregation,  is 
a  part  of  the  public  worship  of  God,  and  ought  to  be  performed  by 
the  ministers  and  teachers  ;" — that  the  preacher,  "  in  each  service, 
ouf^ht  to  read,  at  least  one  chapter,  and  more,  when  the  chapters 
are  short,  or  the  connexion  requires  it ;"  yet  it  is  undeniably  the 
common  practice  to  confine  this  service,  which  is  treated  as  some- 
thing almost  supererogatory,  to  the  Lord's  day  morning.  Now 
while  we  are  zealous  in  maintaining,  that  the  Christian  minister 
should  not  be  bound  down  by  any  imperative  rubric  or  calendar 
as  to  the  portion  which  he  shall  read,  we  cannot  but  blush  when 
we  compare  our  actual  performances  in  this  kind  with  those  of 
many  sister  churches,  who  have  chosen  to  be  guided  by  more  strict 
liturgical  arrangements. 

3.  The  expository  method  is  adapted  to  secure  the  greatest 
amount  of  scriptural  knowledge,  to  both  preacher  and  hearers.  It 
needs  no  argument,  we  trust,  to  sustain  the  position  that  every 
minister  of  the  gospel  should  be  mighty  in  the  Scriptures;  familiar 
with  the  whole  text ;  versed  in  the  best  commentaries ;  at  home 
in  every  portion  of  both  Testaments ;  and  accustomed  to  grapple 
with  the  most  perplexing  difficulties.  This  is  the  appropriate  and 
peculiar  field  of  clerical  study.  It  is  obvious  that  the  pulpit  exer- 
cises of  every  diligent  minister  will  give  direction  and  colour  to 
his  private  lucubrations.  In  order  to  success  and  usefulness  in  any 
species  of  discourse,  the  preacher  must  love  his  work  and  must 
have  it  constantly  before  his  mind.  He  must  be  possessed  of  an 
enthusiasm  which  shall  never  suffer  him  to  forget  the  impending 
task.  His  reading,  his  meditation,  and  even  his  casual  trains  of 
thought,  must  perpetually  revert  to  the  performances  of  the  Sab- 
bath. And  we  take  pleasure  in  beKeving  that  such  is  actually  the 
case  with  a  large  proportion  of  clergymen. 

Now  it  must  not  be  concealed  that  the  popular  and  prevalent 
mode  of  sermonizing,  however  favourable  it  may  be  to  professional 
zeal  of  this  kind,  and  to  the  cultivation  of  mental  habits,  does  by  no 
means  lead  in  any  equal  measure  to  the  laborious  study  of  the 
Scriptures.  The  text,  it  is  true,  must  be  a  fragment  of  the  word 
of  God ;  and  it  may  be  confirmed  and  illustrated  by  parallel  or 
analogous  passages.  But  where  no  extended  exposition  is  attempt- 
ed, the  preacher  is  naturally  induced  to  draw  upon  systematic 
treatises,  philosophical  theories,  works  of  mere  literature,  or  his 
own  ingenuity  of  invention,  and  fertility  of  imagination,  for  such 
a  train  of  thought  as,  under  the  given  topic,  may  claim  the  praise 
of  novelty.  We  are  aware  that  with  many  it  is  far  otherwise, 
and  that  there  are  preachers  who  are  wont  to  select  such  texts  as 
necessarily  draw  after  them  a  full  interpretation  of  all  the  forego- 
ing and  following  context ;  and  such  sermons  are,  to  all  intents  and 
purpo:}es,  expositions.  But  we  also  know,  that  to  compose  a  ser- 
mon upon  a  text  of  Scripture,  with  very  little  reference  to  its  posi- 
tion in  the  word  of  God.  and  a  very  little  inquiry  as  to  the  intent 
of  the  Spirit  in  the  words,  is  a  thing  not  only  possible  but  common. 


542  A    TREATISE    ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING. 

The  evil  grows  apace,  wherever  the  rhetorical  aspect  of  preaching 
attracts  undue  attention;  and  the  desire  to  be  original,  striking, 
in'^enious,  and  elegant,  supersedes  the  earnest  endeavour  to  be 
scriptural. 

This  abuse  is  in  a  good  degree  precluded  by  the  method  of 
exposition.  The  minister  who  from  week  to  week  is  labouring  to 
elucidate  some  important  book  of  Scripture,  has  this  kept  forcibly 
before  his  mind.  It  will  necessarily  be  the  chief  subject  of  his 
studies.  Whatever  else  he  may  neglect,  he  will,  if  he  is  a  con- 
scientious man,  sedulously  peruse  and  ponder  those  portions  which 
he  is  to  explain  ;  using  every  auxiliary,  and  especially  comparing 
Scripture  with  Scripture.  Suppose  him  to  pursue  this  regular 
investigation  of  any  one  book,  for  several  successive  months,  and 
we  perceive  that  he  must  be  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  the  very 
word  of  truth,  vastly  more  extensive,  distinct,  and  profound,  than 
can  fall  to  the  lot  of  one  who  perhaps  for  no  two  discourses 
together  finds  himself  in  the  same  part  of  the  canon.  Two  men 
practising  upon  the  two  methods,  each  in  an  exclusive  manner, 
may  severally  gain  an  equal  measure  of  intellectual  discipline  and 
real  knowledge,  but  their  attainments  will  differ  in  kind.  The  one 
is  driven  from  the  variety  of  his  topics  to  a  fitful  and  fragmentary 
study  of  the  Bible ;  the  other  is  bound  down  to  a  systematic  and 
unbroken  investigation  of  consecutive  truths.  Consider,  also,  how 
much  more  of  the  pure  teachings  of  the  Spirit,  accompanied  with 
suitable  explanation,  necessarily  occupies  the  mind  of  the  preacher 
in  one  method  than  in  the  other. 

If  such  is  the  influence,  with  respect  to  the  preacher  himself, 
who,  under  any  system,  is  still  free  to  devote  his  mind  to  scriptural 
study ;  how  much  greater  is  it  not  likely  to  be  with  respect  to  the 
hearers,  whose  habits  of  investigation  almost  always  receive  their 
character  from  the  sermons  to  which  they  listen  ?  Perhaps  none  will 
deny  that  every  hearer  should  be  made  as  fully  acquainted  with  the 
whole  word  of  God,  as  is  practicable.  But  where,  by  the  mass  of 
Christian  people,  is  this  knowledge  to  be  obtained,  except  at  church? 
The  truth  is,  the  scriptural  knowledge  possessed  by  our  ordinary 
congregations,  amidst  all  our  boasted  light  and  improvement, 
bears  no  comparison  with  that  of  the  Scottish  peasantry  of  the 
last  generation,  who,  from  very  infancy,  were  taught  to  follow  the 

f>reacher,  in  their  little  Bibles,  as  he  expounded  in  regular  course. 
f  long  habit  had  not  prepossessed  us,  we  should  doubtless  agree 
at  once  to  the  proposition,  that  all  the  more  cardinal  books  of 
Scripture  should  be  fully  expounded  in  every  church,  if  not  once 
during  the  life  of  a  single  preacher,  certainly  once  during  each 
generation;  in  order  that  no  man  should  grow  up  without  the 
opportunity  of  hearing  the  great  body  of  scriptural  truth  laid  open. 
And  considering  the  Bible  as  our  only  authentic  document,  this 
method  seems  so  natural,  that  the  burden  of  proof  may  fairly  be 
thrown  on  such  as  have  well  nigh  succeeded  in  excluding  it.  There 
is  something  beautiful  in  the  very  idea  of  training  up  a  whole  con- 


A  TREATISE  ON  EXPOSITORY  PREACHING.  543 

gregation  in  the  regular  study  of  the  holy  Scriptures.     And  if  we 
were  called  upon  to  devise  a  plan  for  inducing  people  to  read  the 
Bible  more  diligently,  we  could  think  of  none  as  likely  to  attain 
the  end.     When  hearers  know  that  a  certain  portion  of  Scripture 
is  to  be  explained  on  the  ensuing  Lord's  day,  they  will  naturally 
be  led  to  examine  it  during  the  week,  and  will  thus  be  prepared  to 
listen  with  greatly  increased  advantage  to  what  may  be  offered. 
This  is  precisely  the  exercise  which  Chrysostom  recommends  to 
his  hearers  in  his  first  homily  on  Matthew.*     The  same  Father 
seems  also  to  have  sometimes  thrown  out  to  his  hearers  difficult 
questions,  in   order  that   they  might    be   stimulated   to   inquiry. 
"  Wherefore,"  he  says,  "  have  I  presented  the  difficulty  and  not 
appended  its  solution  ?     Because  it  is  my  purpose  to  accustom  you, 
not  always  to  receive  food  already  prepared  ;  but  often  to  search 
for  the  explanation  yourselves.     Just  as  it  is  with  the  doves,  which 
as  long  as  their  young  remain  in  the  nest,  feed  them  from  their 
own  bills ;  but  as  soon  as  they  are  large  enough  to  be  fledged  and 
leave  the  nest,  cease  to  do  thus.     For  while  they  bring  them  corn 
in  their  bills,  they  only  show  it  to  them  ;  and  when  the  young  ones 
expect  nourishment,  and  draw  nigh,  the  mother  lets  it  fall  upon  the 
earth,  and  the  little  ones  pick  it  up."t     If  Scripture  difficulties  are 
in  our  day  often  started  in  the  pulpit,  and  often  left  unresolved,  we 
are  not  prepared  to   say  whether  it  is  exactly  with  the  motive 
avowed  by  this  great  preacher.     Certain  it  is,  that  the  able  elucida- 
tion of  dark  places,  and  the  reconciling  of  seeming  contradictions, 
occupy  far  less  room  in  the  sermons  which  we  nowadays  preach, 
than  they  did  in  those  which  have  come  down  to  us  from  a  former 
age.     Not  many  clergymen  adopt  the  method  of  Bishop  Horsely, 
who  was  accustomed  to  select  difficult  texts,  in  order  that   his 
preaching  might  be,  in  the  highest  possible  degree,  an  aid  to  the 
inquiries  of  his  hearers.     And  unless  scriptural  doubts  are  resolved 
from  the  sacred  desk,  it  is  plain  that  the  great  body  of  our  con- 
gregations are  likely  to  remain  in  darkness  as  long  as  they  live. 
But  he  who  proposes  to  analyse  and  interpret  any  considerable 
portion  of  the  Bible,  in  regular  order,  cannot  evade  this  labour, 
but  must  repeatedly  confront  the  most  difficult  passages,  and  pre- 
pare himself  to  make  them  intelligible.     It  would  be  easy  to  expa- 
tiate on  this  topic,  but  enough  has  been  said  to  awaken  some  doubt 
as  to  the  expediency  of  banishing  formal  exposition  from  the  church 
assembly. 

4.  The  expository  method  of  preaching  is  best  fitted  to  commu- 
nicate the  knowledge  of  scriptural  truth  in  its  connexion.  The 
knowledge  of  the  Bible  is  something  more  than  the  knowledge  of 
its  isolated  sentences.     It  includes  a  full  acquaintance  with  the  rela- 

*  'QoTC  6&  evuadiarepov  ytviaBai  tov  \6yo»,  SeSjieOa  xaX  vapaKaXovjitv^  oxsp  koI  lirl  tu>v  aXXaty 
ypa<p6iv  ireiroit'iKanev,  npoaXap^dveiv  t»>  TcepiKOirnv  r»7f  ypa<pi\i,  i,v  av  fitWunitv  l^riytiadai,  Iva 
T.7  yvdiast  //  apayvuais  irpoaoSonoiovaa  (6  Kal  e-ni  tSv  evvov^ov  yiyovs),  iroXXh'   itapavj^oi   rhv 

t  Vol.  iji.,  p.  103. 


544  ^    TREATISE    ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING. 

tion  which  every  proposition  sustains  to  the  narrative  or  argument 
of  which  it  is  a  part.  This  is  particiilarly  true  of  trains  of  reasoning 
where  everything  depends  on  a  cognisance  of  the  links  which  con- 
nect the  several  truths,  and  the  order  in  which  those  truths  are  pre- 
sented. Large  portions  of  holy  writ  are  closely  argumentative, 
and  can  be  understood  in  their  true  intention  only  when  the  whole 
scope  and  sequence  of  the  terms  are  considered.  This  logical 
connexion  is  no  less  the  result  of  inspiration  than  is  any  individual 
statement.  In  some  books  of  Scripture  the  argument  runs  from 
becinning  to  end,  and  the  clew  to  the  whole  is  to  be  sought  in  the 
analysis  of  the  reasoning.  As  instances  of  this  we  may  cite  the 
epistles  to  the  Romans  and  to  the  Hebrews  ;  of  which  no  man 
can  have  any  adequate  conception  who  has  not  been  familiar 
with  all  their  parts  as  constituimg  a  logical  whole.  This,  however, 
is  so  universally  conceded  as  a  first  principle  of  hermeneutics, 
that  it  is  needless  to  press  it  funher.  But  it  is  not  so  generally 
perceived,  that  in  the  other  methods  of  preaching  this  great  advan- 
tage is  sacrificed.  It  is  true  that  a  man  may  announce  as  his  text 
a  single  verse  or  clause  of  a  verse,  and  then  offer  a  full  and  satis- 
factory elucidation  of  the  whole  context,  but  so  far  as  this  is  done, 
the  sermon  is  expository,  and  falls  under  the  kind  which  we 
recommend.  But  this  species  of  discourse  is  becoming  more  and 
more  rare.  In  the  sermons  of  the  Nonconformists  this  was  usually 
the  plan  of  proceeding.  In  modern  sermons,  there  is,  for  the  most 
part,  nothing  which  resembles  it.  A  text  is  taken,  usually  with  a 
view  to  some  preconceived  subject ;  a  proposition  is  deduced  from 
the  text;  and  this  is  confirmed  or  illustrated  by  a  series  of  state- 
ments which  would  have  been  precisely  the  same  if  any  similar 
verse,  in  any  other  part  of  the  record,  had  been  chosen.  Here  there 
is  no  interpretation,  for  there  is  no  pretence  of  it.  There  may  be 
able  theological  discussion, and  we  by  no  means  would  exclude  this; 
but  where  a  method  merely  textual  or  topical  prevails,  there  is  an 
absolute  forsaking  of  that  which  we  have  maintained  to  be  the  true 
notion  of  preachmg.  We  can  conceive  of  a  hearer  listening  during 
a  course  of  years  to  every  verse  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  laid 
open  in  connexion  with  as  many  sermons  of  the  popular  sort, 
without  obtaining  thereby  an  insight  into  the  grand  scope  and 
intricate  contexture  of  that  wonderful  production.  Now  we  say 
that  the  method  which  makes  such  an  omission  possible  is  unfit  to 
be  the  exclusive  method. 

As  a  renmrkable  instance  of  what  is  meant,  we  may  adduce  the 
sermons  of  the  Rev.  William  Jay,  who  is  justly  celebrated  as  one 
of  the  most  fascinating  and  instructive  preachers  of  Great  Britain. 
In  these  sermons  we  find  many  valuable  scriptural  truths,  many 
original  and  touching  illustrations,  much  sound  argument,  pungent 
exhortation,  and  great  unci  ion.  In  themselves  considered,  and 
viewed  as  pulpit  orations,  they  seem  open  to  scarcely  a  single 
objection ;  yet  as  expositions  of  the  Scripture,  they  are  literally 
nothing.     They   clear  up  no  difficulties  in  the  argument  of  the 


A  TREATISE  ON  EXPOSITORY  PREACHING.  545 

inspired  writers ;  they  give  no  wide  prospects  of  the  field  in  which 
their  m.itter  lies ;  they  might  be  repeated  for  a  lifetime  without 
tending  in  the  shghtest  degree  to  educate  a  congregation  in  habits 
of  sound  interpretation.  The  same  remark  applies  to  the  majority 
of  American  discourses,  and  most  of  all  to  those  which  conform 
to  the  prevailing  taste  of  New  England.  In  occasional  sermons, 
and  monthly  collections,  where  we  have  access  to  a  number  of 
printed  discourses,  we  are  often  forcibly  struck  with  the  absence 
of  all  logical  concatenation.  The  text  is  a  sign  or  motto,  after 
announcing  which  the  preacher  glides  into  a  gentle  train  of  com- 
mon-places, or  a  series  of  thoughts  which,  however  ingenious  and 
interesting  and  true,  have  no  necessary  connexion,  **  continuous  in 
their  discontinuity,  like  the  sand-thread  of  the  hour-glass." 

The  mental  habits  of  any  Christian  community  are  mainly 
derived  from  the  preaching  which  they  hear.  It  is  fair  to  ask, 
therefore,  from  what  source  can  the  Christians  of  our  day  be 
expected  to  gain  a  taste  and  ability  for  interpreting  the  Scripture 
in  its  connexion?  Certainly  not  from  the  pulpit.  Among  the 
ancient  Scottish  Presbyterians  the  case  was  d liferent.  Every  man 
and  every  woman,  nay  almost  every  child,  earned  his  pocket-Bible 
to  church,  and  not  only  looked  out  the  text,  but  verified  each  cita- 
tion ;  and  as  the  preach. ng  was  in  great  part  of  the  expository 
kind,  the  necessary  consequence  was,  that  the  whole  population 
became  intimately  acquainted  with  the  structure  of  every  book  in 
the  Bible,  and  were  able  to  recnll  every  p  issnge  with  its  appropriate 
accompanying  truths.  The  genius  of  Protestantism  demands  that 
something  of  this  kind  should  be  attempted.  Wh.'ie  the  laity  are 
not  expected  to  search  the  Scriptures,  or  in  any  degree  to  exercise 
private  judgment,  it  may  answer  every  purpose  to  give  them  from 
the  pulpit  the  mere  results  of  expsition;  but  more  is  needed 
where  we  claim  tor  all  the  privilege  of  trying  every  doctrine  by 
the  word  of  God  ;  and  sermons  should  therefore  be  auxiliaries  to 
the  hearers  in  their  investigation  of  the  record.  And  we  earnestly 
desire  a  general  return  on  the  part  of  our  preachers  to  a  meth(id 
which  will  necessarily  tend,  from  week  to  week,  to  open  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  display,  what  is  by  no  means  thciir  least  excellency,  the 
harmonious  relation  of  ihair  several  portions. 

5.  The  expository  method  affords  inducement  and  occasion  to 
the  preacher  to  declare  the  whole  counsel  of  God.  No  man  who 
selects  his  insulated  texts  at  random  has  any  good  reason  to  be 
satisfied  that  he  is  not  neglecting  the  incuhiation  of  many  impor- 
tant doctrines  or  duties.  This  deficiency  is  prevented  in  some 
good  measure,  it  must  be  owned,  by  those  who  pursue  a  syste- 
matic course  of  doctrines  in  their  ordinary  ministrations.  But 
usually,  the  indolence  or  caprice  which  renders  any  one  averse  to 
the  expository  method,  will  l.kewise  withhold  him  from  methodical 
series  of  any  kind  in  his  discourses.  Tliere  is  perhaps  no  man 
who  has  not  an  undue  fondness  for  some  one  circle  of  subjects: 
and  this  does  not  always  comprise  the  whole  of  what  he  is  bound 

35 


A    TREATISE    ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING. 

to  declare.     But  the  regular  exposition  of  a  few  entire  books,  well 
selected,  would  go  far  to  supply  every  defect  of  this  nature. 

It  is  the  province  of  the  minister  to  render  plain  the  difficulties 
of  the  Bible,  and  this  is  not  likely  to  be  done  extensively,  as  we 
have  elsewhere  hinted,  in  an  exclusive  adherence  to  single  texts. 

There  are  some  important  and  precious  doctrines  of  revelation 
which  are  exceedingly  unwelcome  to  the  minds  of  many  hearers ; 
such,  for  instance,  are  the  doctrines  of  predestination,  and  uncon- 
ditional election.  These,  the  preacher  is  tempted  to  avoid,  and 
by  some  they  are  never  unfolded  during  a  whole  lifetime.  It 
is  obvious  that  no  one  could  expound  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
without  being  under  the  necessity  of  handling  these  points. 

Moreover,  it  is  unquestionable  that  many  doctrines  are  abhor- 
rent to  the  uninstructed  mind,  when  they  are  set  forth  in  their 
naked  theological  form,  which  are  by  no  means  so  when  presented 
in  their  scriptural  connexion.  Here,  again,  is  a  marked  superi- 
ority on  the  side  of  exposition. 

There  is,  we  suppose,  no  pastor,  who  has  not,  in  the  course  of 
his  ministerial  life,  found  himself  called  upon  to  press  certain 
duties,  or  inveigh  against  certain  sins,  which  it  was  exceedingly 
difficult  to  dwell  upon,  either  from  the  delicacy  of  the  theme  itself, 
or  from  its  relation  to  particular  classes  or  individuals  in  his  con- 
gregation. Now  when  such  topics  naturally  arise  in  the  regular 
progress  of  exposition,  all  hesitation  on  this  score  is  removed  at 
once.  The  most  unpopular  doctrines  may  be  stated  and  enforced, 
the  most  prevalent  vices  denounced,  and  the  most  daring  offenders 
chastised,  while  not  even  the  censorious  or  the  sensitive  can  find 
room  for  complaint.  For  these,  and  similar  reasons,  we  conceive 
the  expository  way  of  preaching  to  supply  a  grand  deficiency  in 
our  common  pulpit  ministrations. 

6.  The  expository  method  admits  of  being  made  generally  inte- 
resting to  Christian  assemblies.  We  are  aware  that  the  vulgar 
opinion  is  just  the  reverse  of  this,  and  that  there  are  those  who 
refrain  from  this  way  of  preaching,  under  the  belief  that  it  must 
necessarily  prove  dry  and  repulsive  to  the  hearer.  To  this  our 
reply  is,  that  the  int.^rpretation  of  the  Scriptures  ought  to  be  inte- 
rcstmg  to  every  member  of  a  Christian  community  :  if  it  is  not  so, 
in  fact,  the  cause  of  this  disrelish  is  an  evil  which  the  church 
should  not  willingly  endure,  and  which  can  be  remedied  in  no 
other  way  than  by  bringing  the  public  back  to  the  assiduous  study 
of  the  Bible.  It  is  not  every  sort  of  exposition,  any  more  than 
every  sort  of  sermon,  which  is  interesting.  He  who  hastily  seizes 
upon  a  large  portion  of  the  text,  in  order  to  furnish  himself  with 
ample  material  for  an  undigested,  desultory,  and  extemporaneous 
address,  cannot  expect  to  awaken  and  maintain  attention.  With 
all  their  blindness,  in  certain  matters,  the  public  are  very  sagacious 
in  discovering  when  the  minister  gives  them  that  which  costs  him 
nothing.    But  let  any  man  devote  equal  labour  to  his  lectures  as 


A    TREATISE    ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING.  T^^fl 

to  his  sermons,  and  unless  he  be  the  subject  of  some  idiosyncrasy, 
the  former  will  be  equally  interesting. 

The  observation  is  very  common  that  expository  preaching  is 
exceedingly  difficult.  Yet  the  writers  on  homiletics,  as  if  it  were 
the  easiest  thing  in  the  world,  and  taught  by  nature,  almost  without 
exception  dismiss  the  whole  subject  with  a  few  passing  remarks, 
and  lay  down  no  rules  for  the  conduct  of  a  regular  exposition. 
We  are  persuaded  that  if  equal  pains  were  taken  to  prepare  for 
one  as  for  the  other,  and  if  the  one  were  as  often  practised  as  the 
other,  this  complaint  would  have  no  place. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  have  observed  no  lack  of  interest  in 
such  exercises,  on  the  part  of  intelligent  hearers.     The  truth  is, 
the  Bible  is  made  for  the  common  mind,  and  as  it  is  the  most  inte- 
resting book  in  the  world,  so  its  interpretation,  well  conducted,  is 
always  found  to  be  highly  and  increasingly  agreeable  to  the  major- 
ity of  hearers.     On  the  other  hand,  there  are  few  instances  of 
any  man's  interesting  large  congregations,  for  aziy  length  of  time, 
by  discourses  which  were  void  of  scriptural  statements,  however 
elegant  they  might  be  in  a  rhetorical  point  of  view.     The  effect 
of  mere  ethical  preaching  has  been  sorely  felt  in  Germany,  where, 
in  the  greater  number  of  places,  the  ancient  services  of  the  Sunday 
afternoon,  and  during  the  week,  have  gone  into  desuetude,  and 
there  are  whole  classes  of  persons  whom  one  never  expects  to  see 
in  church,  such  as  merchants,  military  officers,  and  savans.     Teller 
once  preached  a  sermon  to  a  congregation  of  just  sixteen  persons, 
the  intent  of  which  was  to  warn  them  against  setting  too  high  a 
value  on  going  to  church.  "  Let  any  man,"  says  Tholuck, "  imagine  a 
modern  preacher — as  was  common  in  former  days — to  direct  his 
congregation  to  bring  their  Bibles  with  them,  and  that  they  might  be 
assured  that  he  declared,  not  man's  word,  but  the  word  of  God,  at 
every  important  point,  to  look  out  the  passage  cited  :  the  remark  of 
all  elegant  gentlemen  and  ladies  would  be,  *  Oh  !  this  is  too  simple  !' 
Dies  ist  dock  allzu  naiv  /"     But  in  the  days  when  this  simple  prac- 
tice was  in  vogue,  every  one  was  interested  in  exposition  ;  and  it 
will  be  so  again,  whenever  the  public  taste  shall  have  been  reformed 
by  a  return  to  what  was  good  in  the   ancient  methods.     We 
rejoice  to  know  of  at  least  one  instance,  even  in  Germany,  serving 
to  show  that  ordinary  Christians  may,  with  proper  care,  be  led 
back  into  the  old  paths,  and  that  highly  to  their  satisfaction.     "  I 
know  but  one  preacher,"  says  a  writer  in  the  Evangelical  Church 
Journal,  "  in  my  native  country,  where  there  are  more  than  four 
hundred  churches,  who  practises  biblical  exposition  with  success. 
In  his  country  parish,  which  comprises   several  hamlets,  he  is 
accustomed  to  visit  each  of  these  in  turn  once  a  month  (perhaps 
oftener  in  winter),  and  to  lecture  in  the  school-house.     The  hear- 
ers bring  their  Bibles,  and  even  aged  and  infirm  persons,  who  can- 
not go  to  church,  repair  hither  with  eagerness  and  delight.     They 
receive,  neither  mere   fragmentary  and    superficial   remarks   on 
single  words  or  clauses,  nor  a  merely  edifying  address  on  a  scrip- 


546  A    TREATISE   ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING. 

ture  passage,  but  the  connected  exposition  of  some  whole  book, 
developing  as  well  the  specialties  of  language  and  matter,  as  the 
entire  scope  according  to  its  contents.  The  lecturer  begins,  at 
every  meeting,  where  he  left  off  at  the  previous  one.  In  the  next 
hamlet  he  interprets  another  book,  as  large  numbers  come  in  from 
the  neighbouring  villages,  to  enjoy  the  additional  privilege." 
Would  that  we  could  witness  the  same  thing  in  every  congrega- 
tion in  America ! 

There  is  one  advantage  of  expository  lectures,  in  respect  to 
interest,  which  must  not  be  omitted.  Nothing  is  more  evident, 
than  that  the  attention  and  sympathy  of  an  audience  are  best 
ensured  by  a  rapid  transition  from  topic  to  topic.  This  cannot 
always  be  secured  in  the  common  method.  The  preacher, 
from'a  sort  of  necessity,  hammers  with  wearisome  perseverance 
upon  some  one  malleable  thought,  in  order  to  keep  within  his  pre- 
conceived task.  But  where  he  has  before  him  a  number  of  con- 
nected scriptural  propositions,  he  is  not  only  allowed,  but  con- 
strained, to  make  precisely  such  quick  transitions  from  each  point 
to  the  next,  as  gives  great  variety  to  his  discourse,  and  keeps  up 
the  unwearied  attention  of  the  hearer.  With  faithful  preparation 
and  assiduous  practice,  there  is  probably  no  minister  who  might 
not  find  this  happy  effect  from  weekly  lecturing. 

7.  The  expository  method  has  a  direct  tendency  to  correct,  if 
not  to  preclude,  the  evils  incident  to  the  common  textual  mode  of 
preaching.  It  is  an  ordinary  complaint  that  the  sermons  of  the 
present  day,  as  compared  with  those  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
are  meager,  and  often  empty  of  matter ;  we  think  the  charge  is 
founded  in  truth.  No  one  can  go  from  the  perusal  of  Barrow, 
Lcighton,  Charnock,  or  Owen,  to  the  popular  writers  of  our  time, 
without  feeling  that  he  has  come  into  an  atmosphere  of  less  den- 
sity. In  the  mere  form  of  the  pulpit  discourse,  in  an  sesthetical 
point  of  view,  we  have  unquestionably  improved  upon  our  model. 
The  performances  of  that  day  were  too  scholastic  and  complicated. 
*•  The  sermons  of  the  last  c(  ntury,"  says  Cecil,  "were  like  their 
large,  unwieldy  ch;urs.  Men  have  nf)W  a  far  more  true  idea  of  a 
chair.  They  consider  it  as  a  piece  of  furniture  to  sit  upon,  and 
they  ciit  away  from  it  everything  that  embarrasses  and  encumbers 
It.  But  We  have  gone  on  to  cut  away  until  we  have,  in  too  many 
cases,  removed  what  was  important  and  substantial.  The  evil  is 
acknowledged,  but  it  is  worthy  of  inquiry,  how  far  the  superficial 
character  of  modern  sermons  is  derived  from  the  exclusive  use  of 
short  texts.  We  certn'mly  do  not  assert  that  the  Puritans  them- 
selves did  not  carry  ihis  very  method  to  an  extreme,  by  preaching 
nriany  sermons  on  the  same  text ;  but  it  is  well  known  that  they 
almost  universally  pursued  some  variety  of  regular  exposition  in 
conjunction  wiih  ihis.  Still  less  do  we'contcnd  that  all  the  evils 
of  sermonizmg  are  to  be  imputed  to  the  exclusive  use  of  brief 
texts;  the  source  of  the  evil  is  more  remote,  and  must  be 
sought  in  the  spint  of  the  age.    But  still,  there  is  good  ground  for 


A    TREATISE    ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING.  549 

the  position,  that  the  prevailing  method  gives  easy  occasion  to 
certain  abuses,  to  which  direct  exposition  is  not  liable  ;  and  hence 
we  argue  that  the  exclusion  of  the  latter  mode  is  greatly  to  be 
deprecated.  This  is  the  extent  of  our  demand.  Some  of  the 
abuses  to  which  we  refer  may  be  indicated. 

It  is  by  no  means  uncommon  to  hear  sermons  which  are  abso- 
lutely devoid  of  any  scriptural  contents.  The  text  indeed  is  from 
the  Bible,  and  there  may  be  interspersed,  more  for  decoration  than 
proof,  a  number  of  inspired  declarations  ;  but  the  warp  and  the  woof 
of  the  texture  are  a  mere  web  of  human  reasoning  or  illustration. 
Sometimes  the  subject  is  purely  secular ;  and  often,  where  it  is 
some  topic  of  divine  truth,  it  is  maintained  and  urged  upon  natural 
grounds,  independent  of  the  positive  declarations  of  the  Word.  It  is 
not  merely  among  the  Unitarians  of  Boston  that  this  style  prevails. 
There  are  various  degrees  of  approach  to  it  in  many  orthodox 
pulpits  of  New  England.  The  expository  method  renders  this 
exceedingly  difficult :  being  professedly  an  explanation  of  the 
Bible  as  the  ideas  are  there  set  forth.  In  point  of  fact,  this  evil 
seldom  occurs  in  exposition  ;  as  it  is  both  natural  and  easy  for  the 
preacher  to  open  clause  after  clause  in  its  true  sense  and  its 
revealed  order.  Expository  discourse  can  scarcely  fail  to  be 
largely  made  up  of  the  pure  biblical  material. 

A  still  greater  abuse  is  that  of  wresting  texts  from  their  genuine 
meaning  by  what  is  called  accommodation.  This  is  the  extreme 
refinement  of  the  modern  method.  As  if  there  was  a  lamentable 
paucity  of  direct  scriptural  declarations,  to  be  used  as  the  subjects 
of  discourse,  we  have  proceeded  to  employ  sacred  words  in  a 
sense  which  never  entered  into  the  minds  of  their  inspired  writers. 
This  is  the  favourite  trick  of  many  a  pulpit  haranguer,  and 
deserves  to  be  classed  with  the  sesquipedalian  capitals  of  play-bills, 
and  the  clap-traps  of  the  theatre :  in  both  cases  the  object  is  to 
attract  attention  or  awaken  astonishment.  There  can  scarcely  be 
found,  on  the  other  hand,  a  single  man,  however  unbridled  his 
imagination,  who  could  fall  into  such  a  fault  in  the  process  of 
formal  and  professed  exposition.  Common  reverence  for  the 
Word  of  God  must  needs  forbid  any  one  while  in  the  very  act  of 
interpreting  its  successive  statements,  to  exhibit  as  the  true  intent 
of  any  passage,  sentiments  which  no  fair  exegesis  can  extract 
from  it. 

But  even  where  the  text  is  understood  in  its  literal  and  primary 
sense,  the  avidity  for  something  new,  and  a  regard  for  the  "  itch- 
ing ear"  of  modern  auditories,  seduce  the  preacher  into  such  a 
mode  of  treating  his  subject,  as  renders  the  sermon  too  often  a  mere 
exercise  of  logical  or  rhetorical  adroitness.  Where  the  aesthetics  of 
sermonizing  have  been  cultivated  with  overweening  regard,  and 
the  exquisite  partition  of  the  topics  has  been  exalted  to  the 
first  place,  we  see  everything  sacrificed  to  ingenuity.  The 
proper  basis  of  every  discourse  is  some  pregnant  declaration  of 
the  Scripture.     But  in  the  elegant  sermons  which  are  occasionally 


550  A   TREATISE    ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING. 

heard,  the  real  basis  is  an  artificial  division,  or  "  skeleton,"  com- 
monly tripartite,  and  frequently  of  such  structure  as  to  offer  a 
pretty  antithetic  jingle  of  terms,  and  at  the  same  time  to  remove 
out  of  sight  the  true  connexion  and  scope  of  the  text.  When  this 
18  the  case,  far  too  much  stress  is  laid  upon  the  division,  hov^ever 
ingenious.  This  abuse  has  grown  from  age  to  age.  It  was  the 
natural  consequence  of  exclusive  textual  preaching.  Among  the 
French  divines  it  may  be  said  to  have  prevailed,  but  it  has  reached 
its  acme  among  the  Germans ;  who  have  almost  defeated  our 
object  in  these  remarks  by  playing  the  same  tricks  of  fancy  with 
long  passages.  Thus  the  excellent  Tholuck,  in  the  ninth  of  his 
second  series  of  University  Sermons,  has  contrived  from  Acts  i., 
1-14,  to  produce  a  division  not  merely  in  forced  antithesis,  but 
actually  in  rhyme  !     The  partition  being  as  follows : 

1.  Die  Statte  seines  Scheidens,  die  Statte  seines  Leidens  ; 

2.  Verhiillet  ist  sein  Anfang,  verhiillet  ist  sein  Ausgang  ; 

3.  Der  Schluss  von  Seinem  Wegen  ist  fiir  die  Seinen  Segen  ; 

4.  Er  ist  von  uns  geschieden,  una  ist  uns  doch  Geblieben  ; 

6.  Er  bleibt  verhuUet  den  Seinen,  bis  er  wird  klar  erscheinen. 

But  as  a  discourse  is  not  made  expository  by  having  prefixed  to 
it  a  connected  passage  of  Scripture,  we  still  maintain,  that  genuine 
exposition  removes  in  great  measure  the  temptation  to  these 
refinements.  It  deserves  consideration  that  we  treat  no  other 
subjects  but  those  of  religion  in  this  way.  In  all  grave  discussions 
of  human  science,  all  juridical  arguments,  and  all  popular  addresses, 
the  logical  or  natural  partition  of  the  subject  commends  itself  to 
the  common  sense  of  mankind.  Such  is  the  judgment  of  unbiassed 
men  on  this  point.  It  may  not  be  improper  here  to  cite  the 
opinion  of  Voltaire  himself,  because  through  his  sneer  we  discern 
something  like  the  aspect  of  reason.  "  It  were  to  be  wished,"  says 
he,  **  that  in  banishing  from  the  pulpit  the  bad  taste  which  degraded 
it,  he  (Bourdaloue)  had  likewise  banished  the  custom  of  preaching 
upon  a  text.    Indeed,  the  toil  of  speaking  for  a  long  time  on  a 

Quotation  of  a  line  or  two,  of  labouring  to  connect  a  whole 
iscourse  with  this  line,  seems  a  play  unbecoming  the  gravity  of 
the  sacred  function.  The  text  becomes  a  species  of  motto,  or 
rather  an  enigma,  which  is  unfolded  by  the  sermon.  The  Greeks 
and  Romans  had  no  knowledge  of  this  practice.  It  arose  in  the 
decline  of  letters,  and  has  been  consecrated  by  time.  The  habit 
of  always  dividing  into  two  or  three  heads  subjects  which,  like 
morals,  demand  no  partition  whatever,  or  which,  like  controversy, 
demand  a  partition  still  more  extensive,  is  a  forced  method,  which 
P.  Bourdaloue  found  prevalent,  and  to  which  he  conformed." 

But  there  is  another  evil  incident  to  the  modern  method  of 
preaching  which  is  still  more  to  be  deprecated  ;  namely,  emptiness. 
Next  to  the  want  of  truth,  the  greatest  fault  in  a  sermon  is  want 
of  matter.  It  is  not  the  province  of  any  mere  method,  as  such,  to 
furnish  the  material,  but  the  ordinary  mode  of  handling  Scripture 


A    TREATISE    ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING.  551 

in  the  pulpit  affords  great  occasion  for  diffuseness,  and  has  brought 
leanness  into  many  a  discourse.  A  man  of  little  thought,  it  is  true, 
whether  he  preach  from  a  verse  or  a  chapter,  will  necessarily 
impress  the  character  of  his  mind  upon  his  performance  ;  yet  the 
temptation  to  fill  up  space  with  inflated  weakness  is  far  greater 
under  the  modern  method ;  and  where  this  method  is  universal, 
will  overtake  such  as  are  undisciplined  in  mind.  We  conceive  it 
to  be  no  disparagement  of  the  word  of  God  to  say  that  it  is  not 
every  verse  even  of  sacred  writ  upon  which  a  long  discourse  can 
be  written  without  the  admixture  of  foreign  matter.  In  too  many 
instances,  when  a  striking  text  has  been  selected,  and  an  ingenious 
division  fabricated,  the  preacher's  mind  has  exhausted  itself. 
Perhaps  we  mistake,  but  our  conviction  is,  that  far  too  much  stress 
has  been  laid  upon  the  analyses  of  sermons.  Essential  as  they  are, 
they  are  the  bare  plotting  out  of  the  ground.  The  skeleton,  as  it 
is  aptly  called,  is  an  unsatisfactory  object,  where  there  is  not 
superinduced  a  succession  of  living  tissues  ;  it  is  all-important  to 
support  the  frame,  but  by  no  means  all-sutficient,  and  they  who 
labour  on  this,  in  the  vain  hope  of  filling  up  what  remains  by 
extemporaneous  speaking  or  writing,  *•  quite  mistake  the  scaffold  for 
the  pile." 

We  regard  the  diffuseness  of  many  ministers,  however  perspi- 
cuous, as  even  worse  than  obscurity.  The  labour  of  the  preacher's 
thought  is  too  often  intermitted  upon  the  conception  of  a  good 
analysis.  Our  fathers  of  the  last  century  used  to  throw  out 
masses,  sometimes  rude,  and  sometimes  fantastically  carved  and 
chased,  but  always  solid  and  always  golden ;  we,  their  sons,  are 
content  to  beat  the  bar  into  gold  leaf,  and  too  frequently  to  fritter 
this  into  minute  fragments.  Defect  of  thought  is  a  sad  incentive 
to  laboured  expansion,  when  a  man  is  resolved  to  produce  matter 
for  a  whole  hour.  In  such  cases,  the  eflfort  is  to  fill  up  the  allotted 
number  of  minutes.  Too  many  moments  of  sacred  time  are  thus 
occupied  in  adding  water  to  the  pure  milk  of  the  word.  The 
dilute  result  is  not  only  wanting  in  nutritive  virtue,  but  often 
nauseous.  Under  an  admirable  partition,  we  find  sermonizers 
offending  grossly,  and  this  in  a  two-fold  way.  One  preacher  will 
state  his  topic,  and  then,  however  plain  it  may  be,  pertinaciously 
insist  upon  rendering  it  plainer.  In  this  instance  the  heads  of  dis- 
course may  be  likened  to  milestones  on  a  straight  and  level  high- 
way, from  each  of  which  the  traveller  is  able  to  look  forward  over 
a  seemingly  interminable  tract.  Another  will,  in  like  manner, 
announce  his  topic,  and  then  revolve  around  it,  always  in  sight,  but 
never  in  proximity,  until  the  time  of  rambling  being  spent,  he 
chooses  to  return  and  repeat  his  gyrations  about  a  new  centre. 
There  is  little  progress  made  by  the  haranguer,  though  his  language 
or  his  embellishment  be  unexceptionable,  qui  variare  cupit  rem 
prodigialiter  unam.  This  paucity  of  such  matter  as  is  germane 
to  the  subject  in  hand  is  sometimes  betrayed  in  the  attempt  to 
indemnify  for  the  meagerness  of  the  argumentative  part,  by  an 


553  A    TREATISE    ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING. 

inordiDRte  addendum  in  the  shape  of  improvement,  inference,  or 

application.  i      •  i     i 

The  expository  method,  if  judiciously  intermixed  with  the  other, 
offers  a  happy  corrective  to  this  fault.  Here  the  preacher  is  fur- 
nished with  abundance  of  matter,  all-important,  and  fertile  of 
varied  thought.  He  is  placed  under  compression,  and  compelled 
to  exchange  his  rarity  of  matter  for  what  is  close  and  in  the  same 
proportion  weighty.  We  could  give  no  better  recipe  for  the 
cure  of  this  tympany  of  sermonizers,  than  a  course  of  expository 
lectures. 

One  word  must  be  added,  before  we  leave  this  copious  topic,  upon 
the  avidity  with  which  both  preachers  and  hearers  seek  for  novel 
and  striking  texts.  The  most  common  and  familiar  texts  have 
become  sucn,  for  the  very  reason  that  they  are  the  most  important. 
It  is  unworthy  of  the  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  to  be  always  in 
search  of  fragments  which  have  never  before  been  handled.  The 
practice  militates  against  the  systematic  and  thorough  development 
of  the  whole  counsel  of  God.  We  need  not  pause  a  moment  to 
show  that  this  is  an  evil  that  cannot  exist  under  the  method  which 
we  are  solicitous  to  recommend. 

It  forms  no  part  of  our  plan,  in  these  remarks,  to  lay  down  rules 
for  the  conduct  of  an  expository  discourse,  though  the  subject  is 
quite  as  deserving  of  being  treated  in  detail  as  any  other  connected 
with  homiletics.  No  mistake  could  be  more  injurious  to  the  cha- 
racter of  such  exercises,  than  to  suppose  that  they  demand  less 
method  or  less  assiduity  than  the  most  finished  sermons  of  the  ordi- 
nary kind.  They  are  not  to  be  used  as  a  means  of  retreat  from  the 
labours  of  the  closet,  and  he  who  thus  employs  them  will  soon  find 
his  pulpit  services  empty  and  unsuccessful.  In  the  present  state 
of  society,  when  the  public  mind,  especially  in  our  own  country, 
is  trained  by  the  discipline  of  reading  and  hearing  the  highest  spe- 
cimens of  forensic  and  deliberative  eloquence,  it  is  vain  to  expect 
that  any  congregation  can  long  be  interested  in  unpremeditated 
addresses.  We  may  apply  to  this  whole  subject  the  words  of  our 
Directory  for  Worship  :  **  The  method  of  preaching  requires  much 
study,  meditation,  and  prayer.  Ministers  ought,  in  general,  to 
prepare  their  sermons  with  care  ;  and  not  to  indulge  themselves 
in  loose,  extemporary  harangues  ;  nor  to  serve  God  with  that 
which  cost  them  naught.*'*  We  have  met  with  no  instance  in 
which  permanent  usefulness  has  followed  the  practice  of  delivering 
unstudied  sermons.  The  preacher  who  attempts  this  is  sure  to 
fall  into  empty  declamation,  objurgatory  invective,  or  tedious  repe- 
tition. Undigested  discourses  are  commonly  of  tiresome  length, 
and  proportionate  dulness.  Wherever  we*  hear  frequent  com- 
plaints of  a  preacher's  prolixity,  we  are  sure  ourselves  that  he  leaves 
much  of  the  filling  up  of  his  outline  to  the  hour  of  actual  delivery. 
Without  being  himself  aware  of  it,  such  a  preacher  falls  into  a 

•  Chap,  vi.,  §  3. 


A    TREATISE    ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING.  553 

routine  of  topics  and  expressions,  and  is  perpetually  repeating  him- 
self, and  becoming  more  and  more  uninteresting  to  his  charge ; 
while,  at  the  same  time,  he  is  perhaps  wondering  at  the  diminu- 
tion of  his  hearers,  and  attributing  his  want  of  success  to  any  cause 
but  one  within  himself.  The  assiduous  study  of  the  Bible,  with 
direct  reference  to  the  services  of  the  pulpit,  is  indispensably 
necessary,  whatever  species  of  preaching  may  be  adopted. 

We  plead,  at  present,  for  no  more  than  a  discreet  admixture  of 
biblical  exposition  with  the  other  methods  of  discourse.  In  enter- 
ing upon  such  a  course,  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  minister  should 
introduce  his  first  experiments  into  the  principal  service  of  the 
Lord's  day  :  he  might  make  trial  of  his  gifts  in  less  frequented 
meetings,  or  in  some  more  familiar  circle  called  together  for  this 
special  purpose.  And  even  where  the  expository  method  is  exclu- 
sively adopted,  as  some  may  see  cause  to  do,  the  pastor  is  to 
bevirare  of  that  extreme  which  would  always  present  very  long 
passages.  The  expository  plan,  wisely  conducted,  may  be  said  to 
include  the  other.  Where,  in  due  course,  a  verse,  or  even  a  part 
of  a  verse  occurs,  so  important  in  its  relations  and  so  rich  in  matter 
as  to  claim  a  more  extended  elucidation,  it  should  be  taken  singly, 
and  be  made  the  basis  of  a  whole  sermon,  or  even  more. 

As  a  model  of  familiar  exposition  we  would  cite  the  Lectures  of 
Archbishop  Leighton  on  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter.  The  great 
excellency  of  these  is  their  heavenly  unction,  which  led  Dr.  Dod- 
dridge to  say  that  he  never  read  a  page  of  Leighton  without  expe- 
riencing an  elevation  of  his  religious  feelings.  "  More  faith  and 
more  grace,"  says  Cecil,"  would  make  us  better  preachers,  for  out 
of  the  abundance  of  the  heart  the  mouth  speakelh.  Chrysostom's 
was  the  right  method.  Leighton's  Lectures  on  Peter  approach 
very  near  to  this  method." — "  Our  method  of  preaching,"  says  the 
same  writer,  "  is  not  that  by  which  Christianity  was  propagated  : 
yet  the  genius  of  Christianity  is  not  changed.  There  was  nothing 
in  the  primitive  method  set  or  formal.  The  primitive  bishop  stood 
up,  and  read  the  gospel,  or  some  other  portion  of  Scripture,  and 
pressed  on  the  hearers  with  great  earnestness  and  affection,  a  few 
plain  and  forcible  truths,  evidently  resulting  from  that  portion  of 
the  divine  word  :  we  take  a  text,  and  make  an  oration.  Edifica- 
tion was  then  the  object  of  both  speaker  and  hearers ;  and  while 
this  continues  to  be  the  object,  no  better  method  can  be  found."* 

Such  a  mode  of  preaching  is  less  adapted  than  its  opposite  to 
make  the  speaker  a  separate  object  of  regard,  and  might  be  selected 
by  many  on  this  very  account.  It  is  now  some  years  since  we 
enjoyed  the  privilege  of  listening  to  the  late  pious  and  eloquent 
Summerfield,  the  charm  of  whose  brilliant  and  pathetic  discourses 
will  never  be  forgotten  by  those  who  heard  them.  After  having, 
on  a  certain  occasion,  delivered  a  deeply  impressive  sermon  on 
Isaiah  vi.,  1-6,  he  remarked  to  the  writer  of  these  pages,  that,  in 


*  Cecil's  Works,  vol.  iii.,  p.  312, 


% 


554  A    TREATISE    ON    EXPOSITORY    PREACHING. 

consequence  of  having  been  pursued  by  multitudes  of  applauding 
hearers,  he  hd  been  lead  to  exercise  himself  more  in  the  way  of 
simple  exposition,  as  that  which  most  threw  the  preacher  himself 
into  the  snade,  and  most  illustriously  displayed  the  pure  truth  of 
the  Word. 

The  same  idea  was  expressed  by  the  late  Dr.  Mason,  in  cir- 
cumstances which  no  doubt  drew  from  him  his  sincerest  convic- 
tions and  most  affectionate  counsels.  The  words  are  found  in  a 
sermon  preached  in  Murray  Street  Church,  December  2,  1821,  on 
the  occasion  of  resigning  the  charge  of  his  congregation  ;  and  we 
earnestly  recommend  to  every  reader  this  testimony  of  one  who, 
it  is  well  known,  was  eminently  gifted  in  the  very  exercise  which 
he  applauds. 

In  suggesting  to  his  late  charge  the  principles  upon  which  they 
should  select  a  pastor,  he  says :  "  Do  not  choose  a  man  who 
always  preaches  upon  insulated  texts.  I  care  not  how  powerful 
or  eloquent  he  may  be  in  handling  them.  The  effect  of  his  powder 
and  eloquence  will  be,  to  banish  a  taste  for  the  word  of  God,  and 
to  substitute  the  preacher  in  its  place.  You  have  been  accustomed 
to  hear  that  word  preached  to  you  in  its  connexion.  Never  permit 
that  practice  to  drop.  Foreign  churches  call  it  lecturing ;  and 
when  done  with  discretion,  I  can  assure  you  that,  while  it  is  of  all 
exercises  the  most  difficult  for  the  preacher,  it  is,  in  the  same  pro- 
portion, the  most  profitable  for  you.  It  has  this  peculiar  advan- 
tage, that  in  going  through  a  book  of  Scripture,  it  spreads  out 
before  you  all  sorts  of  character,  and  all  forms  of  opinion  ;  and 
gives  the  preacher  an  opportunity  of  striking  every  kind  of  evil 
and  of  error,  without  subjecting  himself  to  the  invidious  suspicion 
of  aiming  his  discourses  at  individuals."* 

With  these  remarks  we  may  safely  leave  the  subject,  commend- 
ing it  to  the  careful  and  impartial  investigations  of  all  who  are 
interested  in  the  propagation  of  divine  truth,  and  particularly  to 
ministers  of  the  gospel,  who,  of  all  men  living,  should  be  most 
solicitous  to  direct  their  powers  in  such  channels  as  to  produce 
the  highest  effect. 

♦Mason's  Works,  vol.  i.,  p.  366. 


ESSAY    XX. 


FtJRST'S  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE/ 


The  appearance  of  great  literary  undertakings,  whether  deserving 
of  the  name  from  the  novelty  or  importance  of  their  subjects,  or 
from  the  amount  of  patient  labour  or  of  original  thought  expended 
on  their  execution,  may  appropriately  be  compared  to  that  of  emi- 
nent individuals  in  the  political  world.  For  as  these  latter  exert  a 
powerful  influence  upon  the  character  and  conduct  not  only  of  the 
men  among  whom  they  live  and  move,  but  also  of  their  posterity 
to  distant  times;  so  important  literary  achievements,  while  thou- 
sands of  ordinary  publications  arc  suffered  to  sink  into  obhvion, 
remain  as  monuments  of  the  intellectual  prowess  of  the  age  in 
which  they  are  produced,  and  serve  as  guides  and  helpers  to  luture 
advances  in  knowledge,  virtue,  and  happiness.  Hence  it  is  highly 
proper  that  their  appearance  and  character  be  recorded  in  literary 
history  for  the  benefit  of  posterity  as  well  as  of  contemporaries, 
in  like  manner  as  those  of  celebrated  men  are  preserved  in  the 
history  of  political  events.  These  two  histories  unitedly  compose 
that  of  mankind  in  general,  considered  both  as  acting  and  as 
reflecting  beings. 

The  two  principles  of  action  and  reflection,  although  inseparably 
combined  in  every  individual  of  the  human  race,  have  each  arrived 
in  various  nations  and  epochs  at  various  degrees  of  development. 
The  predominance  of  the  former  tendency  displays  itself  in  the 
performance  of  deeds  of  heroism,  while  that  of  the  latter  is  exhi- 
bited in  aspirations  after  literary  distinction.  This  truth  will  be 
found  strikingly  exemplified  on  comparing  the  history  of  the  middle 
ages  with  that  of  our  own  times. 

The  former  of  these  two  tendencies  may  be  termed  the  objective, 
or  that  in  which  the  united  faculties  of  mind  and  body  seek  to 
manifest  themselves  in  outward  action;  while  to  the  latter  we 
may  give  the  name  of  subjective,  or  that  in  which  the  mental 
powers,  having  attained  a  high  degree  of  development,  are  more 

Originally  published  in  1839,  in  review  of  **  Concordantiae  Librorum  Veteris  Tes- 
tamenti  Sacrorum  Hebraicae  atque  Chaldaicae,  &c.,  &c."  Auctore  Julio  Fiirstio, 
Doct.  Phil.      Lipsiae.     1S37-8.     Sect.  I.-VIII. 


556  FURSt's    HEBREW    CONCORDANCE. 

especially  directed  to  abstract  reasoning.  Two  opposite  tenden- 
cies analogous  to  these  may  likewise  be  observed  in  the  operations 
of  the  mind  alone,  which  either  restricts  itself  almost  exclusively 
to  a  consideration  of  the  objects  presented  to  it  by  the  world  with- 
out, or,  soon  leaving  these,  proceeds  to  digest,  to  combine,  and  to 
work  out  new  results  of  its  own,  independent  of  any  further  exter- 
nal influence.  The  former  tendency  is  exhibited  in  the  produc- 
tion of  learned  compilations,  the  latter  in  that  of  speculative  and 
theoretical  works. 

As  all  ideas,  including  even  the  most  abstract,  are  in  the  first 
place  excited  although  not  created  by  perceptions,  and  those 
chiefly  of  external  objects,  it  follows  that  the  objective  develop- 
ment of  the  mind  must  necessarily  be  first  in  the  order  of  time; 
and  that  only  after  the  completion  of  such  development  can  its 
subjective  powers  manifest  themselves  in  any  pre-eminent  degree: 
or  as  Schiller  beautifully  expresses  it, 

Nur  durch  das  Morgenthor  des  Schonen 
Dringst  du  in  der  Erkenntniss  Land; 
An  hahrem  Glanz  sich  zu  gewohnen, 
Uebt  sich  am  Reize  der  Verstand. 

If  we  desire  to  kpow  the  degree  in  which  these  opposite  tenden- 
cies of  the  mind  are  developed  in  any  nation  or  epoch,  we  have 
only  to  ascertain  the  character  of  its  principal  literary  productions; 
and  on  this  account,  if  no  other,  their  appearance  must  attract  the 
attention  of  those  who  desire  to  become  acquainted  with  the  his- 
tory of  the  progress  of  the  human  mind.  The  work  whose  title 
is  placed  at  the  head  of  this  article  is  one  which  we  regard  as  pre- 
senting strong  claims  to  consideration,  on  account  of  the  extraor- 
dinary amount  of  mental  labour  both  subjective  and  objective 
which  its  execution  manifests  as  well  as  its  important  bearings  on 
the  advancement  of  biblical  studies. 

As  this  work  comprises  a  Hebrew  Lexicon  as  well  as  a  Con- 
cordance to  the  Hebrew  Bible,  we  will  consider  its  claims  in  each 
of  these  respects  separately,  commencing  with  the  former.  The 
lexicography  of  Dr.  Furst  does  not  consist  in  the  mere  introduc- 
tion of  improvements  of  greater  or  less  consequence  into  the  sys- 
tems of  his  predecessors ;  but  is  founded  on  an  original  plan  of 
his  own,  the  result  of  new  and  most  enlarged  views  of  the  phi- 
losophy of  language.  These  views,  by  making  higher  claims  on 
the  philologist  than  have  been  heretofore  preferred,  give  rise  to 
such  deep  investigations  and  happy  discoveries,  that,  although 
occasionally  warned  by  a  too  great  boldness  of  conjecture  to  be 
cautious  in  their  application,  we  feel  continuallv  more  and  more 
inclined  to  adopt  them  in  all  their  breadth  and  fulness. 

Onexaminmg  into  the  leading  features  of  the  new  system  of 
Hebrew  lexicography  as  compared  with  those  which  have  pre- 
ceded it,  and  tracing  the  course  pursued  by  this  department  of 
philological  science,  we  obtain  a  full  confirmation  of  the  truth  of 


FURST's  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE.  557 

the  axiom  above  laid  down,  that  the  chief  tendency  of  the  mind  in 
its  first  operations  is  decidedly  objective. 

Lexicography,  or  that  science  which  has  for  its  object  the  ele- 
ments of  language,  viz.  words  separately  considered,  was  first 
applied  to  the  Hebrew  about  a  thousand  years  after  it  had  ceased  to 
be  a  living  tongue.  Up  to  that  period  it  had  been  learned  much 
in  the  same  manner  as  that  in  which  a  child  acquires  its  maternal 
idiom,  namely,  by  obtaining  a  knowledge  of  a  succession  of  phrases 
and  entire  sentences  rather  than  of  detached  words.  Now  this 
synthetical  mode  of  acquiring  a  language  closely  resembles  the 
operations  of  nature  in  the  formation  of  speech  ;  for  it  should  be 
remembered  that  the  words  which  constitute  the  body  of  a  lan- 
guage are  created  not  singly  and  in  succession,  but  simultaneously 
in  the  form  of  propositions.  The  same  method  of  study  is  still  in 
use  among  the  Oriental  and  Polish  Jews,  who  obtain  a  practical 
acquaintance  with  the  entire  contents  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
even  of  the  Talmud,  without  ever  knowing  that  such  a  work  as  a 
lexicon  exists,  its  place  being  supplied  to  them  by  living  teachers, 
who,  as  it  were,  resuscitate  the  inanimate  form  of  the  language  by 
again  clothing  it  in  living  articulate  sounds. 

This  mode  of  learning  a  dead  language  can  be  successfully 
pursued  only  when  we  enjoy  the  constant  aid  of  a  living  instructor, 
who,  by  first  explaining  the  meaning  of  the  strange  sounds  through 
the  medium  of  others  which  we  have  been  accustomed  to  employ 
as  the  exponents  of  ideas,  and  by  afterwards  accustoming  us 
through  a  long  course  of  practice  to  associate  our  i(  eas  with  the 
new  sounds  and  the  signs  representing  them,  may  in  time  succeed 
in  making  the  dead  language  bear  to  us  the  relation  of  a  living 
one.  Without  such  assistance  the  signs  in  which  the  spirit  of  the 
dead  language  lies  embalmed  must  for  ever  remain  to  us  a  mystery, 
unless  we  can  learn  their  signification  by  means  of  others  with 
which  we  are  familiar  ;  or,  in  other  words,  unless  we  are  furnished 
with  books  which,  by  explaining  the  etymological  history  and 
meaning  of  every  word,  in  a  language  already  known  to  us,  may 
in  some  measure  supply  the  place  of  viva  voce  instruction. 

As  regards  the  Hebrew,  when  we  consider  that  the  reverence 
in  which  the  sacred  records  it  contains  have  ever  been  held  by  the 
Jewish  nation  has  caused  the  language  to  be  preserved  among 
them  by  tradition  from  generation  to  generation,  and  provision  to  be 
made  for  a  constant  succession  of  teachers  who  spend  their  lives  in 
the  study  and  explanation  of  the  holy  volume,  we  are  \es»  inclined 
to  feel  surprised  at  the  fact  that  the  attention  of  their  learned  men 
v^'as  not  sooner  directed  to  the  investigation  of  single  words,  even 
when  copies  of  the  Scriptures,  glosses  and  various  readings  of  the 
text,  and  copious  commentaries  written  for  the  elucidation  of  par- 
ticular books  existed  in  abundance,  and  were  continually  receiving 
fresh  accessions  to  their  number.  And  in  fact  it  was  only  when, 
in  consequence  of  multiplied  oppressions  and  dispersions,  the  band 
of  teachers  became  diminished,  their  schools  shut  up  or  destroyed, 


M$  7VRST*S    HEBREW    CONCORDANCE. 

nay  the  study  of  the  Law  itself  at  times  prohibited  under  penalty 
of  death,  that  some  of  the  most  intelligent  men  of  the  nation,  per- 
ceiving the  danger  to  which  the  holy  language  lay  exposed  of 
becoming  at  length  irrretrievably  lost,  undertook  the  compilation 
of  lexicographical  works,  in  order  to  prevent  the  occurrence  of 
80  deplorable  a  misfortune. 

The  earliest  attempt  in  this  department  of  literature  of  which 
we  have  any  certain  knowledge,  is  a  collection  of  seventy  difficult 
words  made  by  R.  Saadia  Haggaon  in  the  tenth  century,  accom- 
panied by  brief  explanations  in  Arabic*  But  the  first  work  deserv- 
ing the  name  of  a  Hebrew  lexicon,  was  that  composed  by  R.  Menah- 
hem  ben  S'ruk,  about  the  commencement  of  the  eleventh  century, 
and  which,  although  never  submitted  to  the  press,t  was  evidently, 
from  the  accounts  we  have  of  it,  far  in  advance  of  the  philological  sci- 
ence of  the  day  ;  since  its  author,  by  considering  roots  whose  second 
letter  is  doubled  or  which  contain  a  weak  letter  as  derived  from 
primitive  biliteral  themes,  anticipated  improvements  in  Hebrew 
lexicography  which  have  been  brought  forward  and  developed  by 
a  distinguished  scholar  of  our  day,  and  are  made  by  Dr.  Fiirst  the 
stepping-stones  to  new  and  splendid  discoveries.  Considered  how- 
ever as  a  whole,  the  lexicon  of  Ben  S'ruk  was  greatly  surpassed 
by  that  of  a  Spanish  physician  named  Rabbi  Jonah.  This  author, 
while  he  did  not  neglect  the  traditional  authority,  on  which,  with 
the  aid  of  the  context,  the  work  of  his  predecessor  entirely  rests, 
made  an  admirable  use  of  the  numerous  analogies  existing  between 
the  Hebrew  and  his  mother-tongue,  the  Arabic.  Many  of  the 
illustrations  contained  in  his  work,  as  well  as  those  in  the  similar 
one  of  R.  Jehuda  ben  Karish,  were  afterwards  adopted  by  R. 
David  Kimhhi,  whose  lexicon,  the  Sepher  Hashshorashim,  has 
remained  the  standard  Jewish  authority  to  the  present  time.  It 
far  excels  those  that  preceded  it  both  in  fulness  and  accuracy,  as 
well  as  in  the  number  of  valuable  exegetical  remarks  with  which 
it  abounds.  The  roots,  under  which  the  words  belonging  to  them 
are  promiscuously  ranged,  succeed  each  other  alphabetically,  with 
th«  exception  that  the  pluriliterals  and  those  of  the  biblical  Chaldee 
are  respectively  placed  after  all  the  triliterals  which  commence 
with  the  same  letter.  The  grammatical  order  of  the  species  and 
modes  of  verbs  is  usually  though  not  invariably  observed,  and  each 
word  is  in  general  supported  by  numerous  quotations. 

In  the  productions  of  these  native  lexicographers  a  prominent 
objective  tendency  is  manifest  throughout.  They  all  show  the 
acquaintance  of  their  authors  with  the  Hebrew  to  have  been 
exceedingly  familiar  and  minute;  so  that  the  imperfections  they 
exhibit  are  properly  to  be  ascribed  to  their  want  of  insight  into  the 
philosophy  of  language.     The  earliest  among  these  writers  were 

•  It  has  been  printed  with  annotations  by  Leopold  Dukes  in  the  Zeitschrift.  f.  d. 
Morronland.    Vol.  V.—Ed. 

tjThe  gjrammatical  Introduction,  with  extracts  from  the  body  of  the  work,  is  given 
byDukes  in  his  Literaturhistorische  Mittheilungen.    Stuttgart,  1844.     P.  125,  seqq. 


FURST's  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE.  559 

firmly  of  opinion,  with  the  commentators  who  preceded  them, 
that  as  the  Law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  the  language  in  which  it  is 
contained  must  also  be  perfect,  and  therefore  could  stand  in  no 
need  of  aid  from  foreign  sources  for  its  elucidation.  In  conse- 
quence of  this  belief  and  of  the  general  objective  tendency  of 
their  minds,  whenever  they  undertook  the  illustration  of  an  indivi- 
dual word,  they  regarded  it  as  it  presented  itself  in  the  Bible,  with- 
out referring  to  any  other  language  than  the  Hebrew,  and  without 
attempting  to  discover  those  natural  laws  of  speech  which  caused 
it  to  assume  such  and  such  a  form  rather  than  another.  They 
supposed  their  task  completed,  when  they  had  collected  the  several 
meanings  in  which,  according  to  traditional  interpretation,  the  word 
was  employed  in  the  various  passages  where  it  appeared ;  and 
when,  as  was  not  unfrequently  the  case,  these  meanings  appeared 
entirely  unconnected  and  even  diametrically  opposite,  their  purely 
objective  mode  of  viewing  the  subject  prevented  them  from  seek- 
ing to  trace  out  the  primary  signification  of  the  root,  a  knowledge 
of  which  alone  could  remove  these  apparent  discrepancies. 

In  a  few  instances,  indeed,  where  the  customary  aid  of  tradition 
appears  to  have  been  wanting,  we  find  them  having  recourse  to  a 
living  sister  dialect.  Thus  it  is  related  in  the  Talmud  (Rosh  Hash- 
shana,  fol.  26),  that  the  rabbis  were  ignorant  of  the  meaning  of  the 
word  'inittsHt:  Is.  xiv.  23,  until  one  of  them  heard  his  foreign  serv- 
ant say  to  a  woman  Kn-^n  '^t:»::i  ^rr^CHt:  -<bipo  "  take  the  broom  and 
sweep  the  house."  So  also  they  did  not  know  what  ^niT'  Ps.  Iv. 
23,  signified,  until  an  Arab  was  heard  to  use  the  expression  iipo 
''Sib^aax  "'HOT  ipn^^  "  take  thy  burden  and  cast  it  upon  the  camel." 
(Meg.  fol.  18.) 

To  the  general  rule  however  of  closely  adhering  to  tradition, 
and  of  endeavouring  by  means  of  it  and  of  the  context  to  make 
the  Hebrew  elucidate  itself,  we  meet  with  no  considerable  excep- 
tion until  the  time  of  R.  Jonah,  who  first  laid  under  contribution 
for  this  purpose  the  rich  treasures  of  the  copious  and  nearly  related 
Arabic ;  an  example  which  has  been  followed  up  with  the  most 
signal  success  by  learned  European  Orientalists  of  the  two  last 
centuries.  These  scholars  observed  that  words  of  the  same  form 
and  bearing  precisely  the  same  meaning  as  the  Hebrew,  were  of 
constant  occurrence  in  the  Arabic ;  frequently  too  they  found  the 
primary  signification  of  a  root  still  in  use  in  the  latter  language 
which  no  longer  appeared  in  the  former,  and  were  enabled  by 
means  of  it  to  exhibit  all  the  secondary  acceptations  in  a  beauti- 
fully logical  connexion.  In  many  instances  the  root  itself  of  a 
numerous  stock  of  derivatives  was  discovered,  and  thus  a  number 
of  words  united  under  a  single  stem  which  before  had  been  sup- 
posed to  belong  to  several.  Much  information  was  also  gained  on 
the  subject  of  the  interchange  of  letters,  the  study  of  which  in  the 
Arabic  is  facilitated  by  an  orthography  at  once  euphonic  and 
etymological. 

Still  these  investigations  were  not  regulated  by  a  comprehensive 


FURST's    HEBREW    CONCORDANCE. 

philosophical  view  of  the  laws  regulating  the  creation  and  develop- 
ment of  langunges,  or  of  the  essentially  organic  nature  of  the  con- 
nexion existing  between  those  of  the  same  stock  ;  and  hence  the 
rage  for  directly  referring  everything  in  the  Hebrew  to  the  stan- 
dard of  the  Arabic,  was  suffered  to  increase  to  an  extent  the  inju- 
rious effects  of  which  are  still  but  too  apparent  in  our  best  lexicons. 
A  full  consideration  of  this  interesting  subject  if  undertaken  here 
would  lead  us  too  far  from  our  main  purpose ;  it  must  therefore  be 
reserved  for  a  future  occasion :  but  before  leaving  it  we  would 
remark,  that  we  are  far  from  desiring  either  to  depreciate  the  value 
of  modern  labours  and  discoveries,  or  to  deny  the  closeness  of  the 
connexion  that  exists  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  other  branches  of 
the  Shemitish  stock.  What  we  do  mean  to  say  is,  that  when  the 
investigation  of  the  Hebrew  shall  have  been  conducted  with  a  clear 
conception  of  the  true  sources  and  nature  of  language,  and  accom- 
panied by  an  accurate  analysis  of  articulate  sounds  and  of  the  laws 
on  which  their  mutations  depend,  not  only  will  the  true  relations 
which  the  Hebrew  bears  to  its  sister  dialects  be  perceived,  but 
the  language  will  likewise  be  seen  extending  its  points  of  affinity 
far  beyond  these  narrow  bounds,  and  uniting  with  all  other  primi- 
tive tongues  in  the  indissoluble  bond  of  a  community  of  origin. 

Notwithstanding  what  may  seem  the  boldness  of  this  assertion, 
and  the  magnitude  of  the  obstacles  which  the  philologist  must 
encounter  who  undertakes  a  practical  demonstration  of  its  truth, 
still  we  think  that  its  probability  at  least  will  become  evident  to  all 
who  attentively  consider  the  numerous  examples  given  by  Gese- 
nius  of  strong  resemblance  and  even  identity  between  Shemitish 
and  Indo-European  primitives.  If  any  fail  of  being  fully  convinced 
by  these  facts,  although  unable  positively  to  deny  the  truth  of  the 
theory  they  tend  to  support,  they  should  reflect  that  the  discovery 
of  them  has  proceeded  rather  from  a  partly  unconscious  anticipa- 
tion, the  result  of  long  continued  and  laborious  researches,  than 
from  any  very  profound  or  original  views  of  the  organic  nature  of 
language.  That  such  is  really  the  case,  and  that  much  more 
remains  to  be  accomplished  in  this  respect  than  has  hitherto  been 
performed,  is  incontestably  proved  by  the  multitude  of  striking  com- 
parisons contained  in  the  Concordance  of  Dr.  Furst. 

In  the  lexicographical  department  of  this  work  its  author  shows  a 
constant  endeavour,  excited  by  the  distinguished  success  which  has 
aitendrd  the  application  of  the  science  of  comparative  philology  to 
the  Indo-European  languages,  to  burst  asunder  the  bands  that  for 
a  tiiousand  years  have  held  the  Shemitish  tongues  in  an  isolated 
cond/ton  apart  from  every  other.  And  in  truth  his  deeply  pene- 
trntin;r  mind  and  extensive  knowledge  of  the  Indo-European  as 
well  as  Shemitish  languages,  have  enabled  him  to  bring  forward  a 
host  of  cogent  proofs  in  support  of  his  theory  of  the  original 
miimate  relation  if  not  identity  of  those  primitive  languages  of  the 
ancient  world  to  which  he  gives  the  name  of  Sanscrito-Semitic, 
and  which  comprise  the  Sanscrit  family  including  the  numerous 


FURSt's    HEBREW    CONCORDANCE.  561 

dialects  of  India,  the  Medo-Persic,  the  Shemitish,  the  Graeco-Latin, 
the  Teutonic,  and  the  Slavonic. 

Such  being  the  opinion  of  this  eminent  philologist,  it  becomes 
requisite  for  our  own  satisfaction  to  inquire  into  the  reason  of  its 
adoption.  This  is  not  to  be  sought  in  the  mere  external  form  of 
these  languages,  since  their  striking  dissimilarity  in  this  respect  is 
that  which  presents  the  greatest  obstacles  to  their  re-union  under 
one  head,  and  has  hitherto  caused  those  belonging  to  the  Shemitish 
family  to  be  considered  as  completely  sui  generis.  In  fact  it  was 
something  lying  far  deeper  in  the  philosophy  of  language  than  this :  it 
was  the  perception  and  acknowledgment  of  a  constant  relation 
between  the  objective  sound  of  a  word  and  the  subjective  idea 
which  called  it  into  existence,  an  idea  which  must  be  radically  and 
essentially  the  same  in  every  human  mind.  In  consequence  of  this 
relation  between  a  word  and  the  idea  from  which  it  originated, 
and  of  the  fundamentally  uniform  nature  of  a  given  idea  by 
whomsoever  entertained,  it  follows  that  even  the  words  employed 
by  different  tribes  of  men  must  bear  the  stamp  of  a  common 
origin ;  notwithstanding  that  discrepancies  may  appear,  owing  to 
the  variety  of  ways  in  which  the  same  idea  may  be  perceived  by 
different  individuals,  and  still  more  to  the  many  influences  acting 
upon  the  sound  that  represents  it  both  in  its  creation  and  during 
its  whole  existence. 

This  relation  of  a  word  to  its  originating  idea  is  not  to  be  look- 
ed for  in  all  its  parts  as  we  now  meet  with  it,  or  even  as  it  was 
first  produced  ;  since  nothing  purely  ideal  can  be  endowed  with  a 
physical  existence,  without  at  the  same  time  receiving  some  alloy : 

Dem  Herrlichsten  was  auch  der  Geist  empfangen 
Drangt  immer  fremd  und  fremder  Stoff  sich  an.* 

So  that  a  Xvord  even  in  its  purest  and  most  genuine  form  will 
osually  be  found  to  contain  some  foreign  admixture  in  addition  to 
the  sounds  immediately  related  to  the  idea  it  expresses  ;  a  fact 
which  Prof.  Bopp,  in  following  out  and  improving  upon  the  views 
of  the  Indian  grammarians,  has  developed  with  singular  ingenuity 
and  depth  of  research  in  his  Sanscrit  Grammar,  when  treating  of 
the  formation  of  words  by  the  addition  of  Krit  and  Unadi  suflixes 
to  primitive  themes.  A  full  and  clear  perception  of  this  truth  is 
of  the  greatest  importance  to  the  successful  investigation  of  the 
etymological  history  of  the  Hebrew  ;  since  it  affords  the  means 
both  of  uniting  under  single  heads  the  greater  part  of  its  synonyms 
and  of  ascertaining  the  relations  of  its  roots  to  those  of  other 
primitive  tongues. 

Formerly  Hebrew  roots  were  considered  as  indivisible  totalities, 
each  constituent  part  of  which  had  an  equal  share  in  conveying  the 
idea.  Consequently  each  root  preserved  a  distinct  exclusiveness 
with  regard  to  the  rest,  and  was  supposed  to  share  in  a  peculiarity 

♦Gothe's  Faust. 
36 


FURST's    HEBREW    CONCORDANCE. 

pervading  all  the  Shemitish  languages,  viz.  that  of  being  compos* 
ed  of  three  original  consonants.  It  being,  however,  perceived,  that 
Diaoy  verbs  of  the  same  or  a  similar  meaning  had  two  radicals  in 
common,  while  the  third  was  an  imperfect  letter,  lexicographers  at 
length  came  to  the  conclusion  that  they  must  have  been  construct- 
ed Irom  biliteral  themes  by  the  addition  of  a  prefixed,  affixed,  or 
inserted  imperfect  letter  to  complete  the  usual  triliteral  form. 
These  views  were  further  extended  by  observing,  on  a  comparison 
of  the  Hebrew  roots  with  their  cognates  in  Aramaic  and  Arabic, 
that  certain  classes  of  letters  were  frequently  interchanged,  espe- 
cially those  of  the  same  or  of  adjacent  organs,  the  liquids,  and 
the  quiescents.  But  although  the  roots  of  the  several  Shemitish 
languages  were  thus  brought  nearer  together,  the  great  majority 
of  Hebrew  synonyms  continued  to  be  regarded  as  destitute  of  any 
other  etymological  connexion. 

This  supposition  is  successfully  combated  by  Dr.  Furst,  who 
has  ascertained  beyond  doubt  that  the  accession  to  a  primitive 
biliteral  may  and  often  does  consist  of  a  jE?er/*ec/  letter.  The  inves- 
tigations to  which  he  was  led  by  this  discovery,  have*  not  only 
brought  the  great  mass  of  Hebrew  roots  into  close  comparison 
with  those  of  numerous  other  languages,  but  have  also  shown  an 
interconnexion  both  in  form  and  meaning  between  many  of  the 
former  which  had  been  regarded  as  entirely  independent  of  each 
other.  This  he  accomplishes  by  a  skilful  analysis  of  words  and 
their  elements,  in  order  to  distinguish  between  those  sounds  which 
are  of  importance  as  being  strictly  related  to  the  ideas  they  con- 
vey, and  those  which  are  adscititious  and  therefore  of  no  moment. 
Being,  however,  well  aware  that  the  further  the  province  of  a 
word  is  extended  and  the  greater  the  allowances  made  for  the 
changes  to  which  sounds  are  liable,  the  more  imminent  is  the  dan- 
ger of  running  into  vague  speculation  and  conjecture,  he,  before 
pronouncing  as  to  the  essentiality  or  non-essentiality  of  any  of  the 
elements  of  a  word,  carefully  compares  it  with  its  cogn^ites  in  the 
other  Shemitish  dialects  and  with  all  its  derivatives  and  synonyms. 
He  then  concludes  that  the  elements  which  are  common  to  them 
all,  constitute  the  real  theme,  and  that  the  remainder,  being  mere 
admixtures,  may  be  safely  disregarded  in  further  etymological 
comparisons. 

Having  thus  ascertained  the  root,  he  next  traces  it  through  the 
principal  languages  of  the  Indo-European  stock,  thus  giving  it  a 
greater  historical  development,  and  as  it  were  setting  the  seal  to 
his  former  discoveries.  By  this  means  he  often  succeeds  in  reduc- 
ing a  number  of  existing  roots  to  a  single  primitive  theme  ;  while 
those  which  are  no  longer  to  be  found  in  the  language,  and  which 
lexicographers  formeriy  attempted  to  supply  directly  from  Aramaic, 
Arabic,  and  Ethiopic  sources,  often  in  a  very  far-fetched  and 
unsatisfactorv  manner,  he  cleariy  and  naturally  deduces  from  lan- 
guages which,  although  less  related  to  the  Hebrew,  belong  indubi- 
tably to  the  same  great  class  of  tongues. 


. 


FURST's  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE.  563 

This  analytical  process  he  employs  also  in  finding  out  the  primary 
significations  of  roots,  whence  all  their  own  acceptations  as  well  as 
those  of  their  derivatives  naturally  spring.  Here  too  the  danger 
of  being  confounded  and  misled  by  the  numerous  particulars  which 
must  be  considered  in  order  to  arrive  at  correct  conclusions,  pointed 
out  the  necessity  of  establishing  some  guiding  principle  by  which  to 
regulate  the  investigation.  Our  author  chose  for  this  purpose  the 
traditional  history  of  the  significations  of  each  word;  having 
detailed  these  at  length,  he  adopts  them  as  the  data  on  which  to 
ground  subsequent  inquiries,  and  then  proceeds  to  develope,  unite, 
and  complete  them  by  means  of  his  researches  in  comparative 
philology. 

The  success  attending  the  constant  and  faithful  application  of 
this  analytico-historical  method  of  induction,  caused  him  to  lay 
down,  in  a  previous  work,*  the  following  propositions  as  incon- 
testable: **  1.  That  there  is  no  verbal  or  pronominal  root  in 
Hebrew  or  Aramaic  which  is  not  completely  identical  in  its  pri- 
mary form  and  meaning  with  those  of  the  other  Sanscrito-Semitic 
languages  ;  and  that  consequently  the  frame-work  and  plan  of  all 
the  languages  included  under  this  designation  must  be  in  effect  the 
same.  This  is  not  a  mere  lifeless  unity  of  language,  but  an  orga- 
nic one,  inspired  by  an  animating  principle  throughout,  with  deve- 
lopment and  progress,  growth  and  decay,  natural  simplicity  and 
unnatural  artificiality,  like  man  himself.  2.  That  the  opinion 
maintained  by  the  rational  school,  of  the  fossilizing  (Erstarrung)  of 
the  Shemitish  roots  in  a  certain  number  of  consonants  and  sylla- 
bles, is  without  foundation  ;  seeing  that  they  are  identical  bothin  form 
and  meaning  with  the  Sanscrit.  And  that  the  alleged  incapacity 
for  composition  in  the  Shemitish  roots  is  disproved  by  the  histori- 
cal comparison  with  those  of  the  Sanscrit ;  from  which  it  appears 
that  a  great  part  of  them  are  composed  of  an  original  theme  and 
a  prepositional  prefix.  3.  That  these  prepositional  prefixes  which 
enter  into  the  composition  of  the  roots,  and  which  are  readily  dis- 
cernible by  analysis  in  the  initial  non-radical  syllable,  have,  as  in 
the  other  families  of  tongues,  strictly  defined  and  permanent  signi- 
fications, which,  as  well  as  those  of  the  themes  themselves,  are  to 
be  ascertained  by  historical  comparison.  4.  That  this  unity 
extends  not  only  through  the  roots,  but  also  through  the  primary 
and  most  predominant  grammatical  formations ;  in  short,  every 
afformative  has  its  history  " 

That  the  dazzling  results  of  these  bold  and  in  general  happy 
speculations  have  occasionally  led  this  indefatigable  scholar  to  too 
great  a  length,  in  slighting  the  labours  of  his  predecessors,  we  cannot 
altogether  deny  ;  yet  it  would  be  doing  his  merits  signal  injustice 
were  we  not  to  acknowledge,  that  the  success  which  for  the  most 
part  has  crowned  his  exertions,  clearly  evinces  the  correctness  of 
his  views  and  also  of  the  plan  which  they  have  induced  him  to 

*  Perlenschnore  aramaischer  ODomen  und  Lieder,  Vorrede,  pp.  15, 16. 


JPI  FUBST's   HEBREW   CONCORDANCE. 

adopt.  Indeed  we  regard  his  work  as  the  exposition  of  a  new 
lystem  in  Hebrew  lexicography,  and  one  which  we  cannot  doubt 
will  in  a  short  time  carry  it  by  the  judicious  application  of  the 
principles  he  has  laid  down  to  a  degree  of  perfection  of  which  no 
other  language  in  the  world  can  boast.  To  support  these  remarks 
by  copious  and  appropriate  examples  would  be  an  easy  task,  as 
such  are  furnished  by  almost  every  page  ;  but,  as  we  have  already 
reached  the  limits  assigned  by  us  to  this  part  of  our  subject,  we 
will  merely  state  in  addition  the  outlines  of  the  plan  on  which  the 
lexicographical  portion  of  the  work  is  conducted,  before  proceed- 
ing to  a  consideration  of  its  claims  as  a  concordance  properly  so 
called. 

Immediately  under  the  word  to  be  explained,  and  preceding  the 
citation  of  the  passages  of  Scripture  containing  it,  is  placed  its 
etymological  history  and  elucidation  in  rabbinic  Hebrew  and  in 
Latin.  The  Hebrew  part  of  the  exposition,  which  is  written  in  a 
pure  and  elegantly  idiomatic  style,  comprises  the  traditional  his- 
tory of  the  word  and  its  significations  as  given  by  ancient 
Jewish  authorities.  In  the  Latin  part  which  follows,  this  his- 
tory is  further  carried  out  by  means  of  an  extensive  and  most 
ingenious  comparison  with  its  cognates  in  sound  and  meaning 
among  the  principal  languages  of  the  Sanscrito-Semitic  stock,  as 
the  Chaldee,  Syriac,  Arabic,  Sanscrit,  Greek,  Latin,  German,  &c., 
together  with  the  expressions  by  which  it  is  rendered  in  the  Chal- 
dee Targums,  the  ancient  Greek  Versions,  and  the  Latin  Vulgate. 

Before  making  our  remarks  on  the  work  of  Dr.  Furst  in  its 
quality  of  concordance,  we  shall  offer  some  observations  on  the 
objects,  plan,  use,  and  history  of  concordances  to  the  Hebrew  Bible. 

I.  The  objects  of  a  complete  Hebrew  concordance  require  that 
it  should  embrace  the  following  particulars  : 

1.  All  the  principal  words  both  notional  and  relational  contained 
in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

2.  All  the  forms  in  which  they  appear. 

3.  All  the  connexions  in  which  these  forms  are  severally  to  be 
found,  with  the  places  where  they  occur. 

I,  Every  language  possesses,  as  its  material,  a  greater  or  less 
number  of  words.  These  consist  of  notional  words,  or  such  as 
convey  the  idea  either  of  a  material  or  immaterial  existence,  or  of 
an  action  or  slate  of  being ;  and  relational  words,  or  those  which 
serve  to  point  out  the  relations  which  such  existences  and  actions 
bear  to  each  other.  The  words  of  the  first  class  are  divided  into 
nouns,  pronouns,  and  verbs  ;  those  of  the  second  are  collectively 
termed  particles. 

These  words  are  either  created  immediately  upon  the  conception 
of  the  ideas  they  convey,  through  the  agency  of  the  organs  of 
spec,  h,  and  hence  receive  the  name  of  primitives ;  or  they  are 
constructed  in  various  ways  from  the  elements  of  other  words 
already  in  existence  and  representing  some  analogous  idea,  whence 
they  are  called  derivatives.    Now  as  the  formation  of  neither  of 


FURST's  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE.'  566 

these  species  of  words  can  precede  the  conception  of  the  ideas 
which  they  represent,  and  can  at  most  only  be  contemporary  with 
such  conceptions,  the  number  of  words  composing  a  nation's  lan- 
guage must  depend  entirely  on  that  of  its  ideas  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
on  the  nature  of  the  external  world  by  which  it  is  surrounded., 
and  the  amount  and  quality  of  the  intellectual  cultivation  it  may 
receive. 

But  the  circumstances  of  a  people's  existence  are  subject  to  con- 
tinual changes,  which  exert  a  powerful  influence  on  the  national 
idiosyncrasy ;  consequently  its  stock  of  ideas,  and  together  with  . 
them  the  words  which  serve  as  their  exponents,  will  be  liable  to 
corresponding  fluctuations,  such  as  the  introduction  of  new  terms, 
the  attributing  of  new  significations  to  the  old  ones,  and  finally 
the  rejection  of  them  altogether.  The  changes  superinduced  in  the 
language  of  a  nation  by  its  external  circumstances  are  not  more 
numerous  than  those  which  result  from  the  improvement  or  dete- 
rioration of  the  general  state  of  its  intellectual  culture  ;  for  the 
mental  faculties  of  a  nation,  like  those  of  an  individual,  may  either 
remain  through  neglect  in  an  undeveloped  state,  or  be  brought  by 
assiduous  cultivation  to  the  highest  perfection.  And  hence,  as  long 
as  a  people  retain  the  same  language  for  the  communication  of  their 
wants,  feelings,  and  ideas,  its  richness  or  poverty  will  serve  as  an 
exact  index  to  the  degree  of  development  to  which  the  national 
mind  has  attained. 

As  all  living  languages  are  in  this  constant  state  of  mutation,  it 
is  impossible  to  construct  lexicons  for  them  which  shall  remain 
even  tolerably  complete  for  more  than  a  limited  space  of  time. 
This,  however,  is  not  the  case  with  the  Hebrew,  which  has  ceased 
to  be  a  living  tongue  for  more  than  two  thousand  years,  and  whose 
whole  authentic  remains  are  contained  in  the  small  number  of 
books  composing  the  Old  Testament.  This  fact,  together  with  the 
important  character  of  the  sacred  writings,  on  the  knowledge  of 
which  our  temporal  and  eternal  happiness  depends,  long  ago  sug- 
gested the  idea  of  making  a  systematic  collection  of  all  the  words 
contained  in  the  Bible,  with  all  their  forms  and  connexions  and  the 
places  in  which  they  are  found,  to  serve  as  a  perpetual  guide  to  the 
thorough  understanding  of  the  sacred  volume.  A  concordance 
then  differs  from  a  lexicon  principally  in  this,  that  while  the  chief 
object  of  the  latter  is  the  scientific  exposition  of  the  various  shades 
of  meaning  which  words  convey,  that  of  the  former  is  to  show 
where  these  words  occur. 

2.  The  notional  words  in  Hebrew  appear  in  a  variety  of  forms, 
produced  by  changes  in  their  vowels  and  consonants,  and  by  the 
addition  of  initial  and  final  augments.  The  principal  changes  to 
which  verbs  are  subjected  consist  in  the  inflections  made  use  of  to 
distinguish  the  different  species,  modes,  tenses,  persons,  and  num- 
bers, in  which  they  are  employed.  Those  which  nouns  undergo 
are  produced  by  the  influence  of  the  pause-accents,  by  passing 
from  the  absolute  to  the  construct  state,  and  in  forming  the  plural 


f$$  FUBST's  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE. 

number.  Every  part  of  speech  may  receive  accessory  letters  of 
different  kinds  in  the  shape  of  prefixes  and  suffixes.  In  the  concor- 
dance all  the  forms  to  which  these  changes  and  additions  give  rise 
should  constitute  distinct  heads  arranged  in  a  proper  order ;  so  that 
any  one  of  them  may  instantly  be  found,  and  the  number  of  times 
it  occurs  ascertained. 

3.  As  the  significations  of  v^^ords  are  affected  in  no  slight  degree 
by  their  various  connexions,  it  is  requisite,  as  we  have  already 
observed,  that  the  concordance  should  give  these  connexions  also, 
by  quoting  with  sufficient  fulness  the  passages  in  which  a  word  is 
contained  ;  and  in  order  that  the  inquirer  may  be  enabled  to  turn 
to  their  places  in  the  text  for  his  further  satisfaction,  they  should  be 
accompanied  by  references  to  the  book,  chapter,  and  verse  whence 
they  are  taken. 

II.  Having  now  briefly  described  what  the  objects  embraced  by 
a  concordance  render  necessary  that  it  should  contain,  we  next  pro- 
ceed to  a  delineation  of  the  plan  on  which  it  should  be  constructed 
so  as  to  facilitate  its  use  to  the  utmost.  In  the  first  place,  then,  the 
author  must  decide  upon  what  is  to  constitute  the  governing  prin- 
ciple of  the  whole  arrangement — whether  signification  or  gram- 
matical form.  He  has  next  to  determine  upon  the  order  in  which 
to  dispose  the  words,  viz.,  whether  to  commence  with  the  sim- 
ple forms  of  a  primitive  word  and  its  derivatives,  and  then  give 
the  different  shapes  arising  from  inflection  and  from  the  reception 
of  prefixes  and  suffixes ;  or  whether  first  to  go  through  alj  the 
forms  of  the  primitive  and  afterwards  those  of  each  derivative  in 
regular  succession.  The  proper  arrangement  of  the  quotations 
also  demands  some  consideration  ;  since  various  reasons  may  be 
urged  in  favour  of  placing  the  books  in  the  order  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  in  that  of  the  Vulgate,  or  in  that  of  the  periods  in  which 
they  were  composed.  These  are  some  of  the  principal  points 
which  must  engage  the  attention  of  the  compiler  of  a  Hebrew 
concordance ;  and  on  the  justness  of  his  conclusions  with  regard 
to  them  the  utility  of  his  work  will  in  great  measure  depend. 

In  stating  our  own  views  on  the  subject  we  have  no  hesitation 
in  giving  the  preference  to  a  plan  founded  on  the  scientific  princi- 
ple of  disposing  words  in  the  order  of  their  grammatical  develop- 
ment, and  combining,  as  far  as  may  be  practicable,  the  advantages 
of  the  alphabetical  arrangement.  Thus,  the  verb  should  be  divided 
2«o  >^  several  species  of  Kal,  Niph'hal,  Pi'hel,  Pu'hal,  Hiph'hil, 
Hoph  hal,  and  Hithpa'hel,  and  each  treated  separately  in  succession. 
The  modes  of  each  species  should  succeed  each  other  in  the 
following  order:  the  Indicative,  comprising  the  preterite  and 
future  lenses;  the  Imperative,  which  being  formed  from  the 
future  should  be  placed  immediately  after  it ;  the  Infinitive  ;  and 
lastly  the  Participle,  which  as  well  as  the  infinitive  is  a  verbal 
noun,  and  receives  for  the  most  part  the  same  prefixes  and  suffixes 
as  other  nouns. 

The  two  tenses  should  be  subjected  to  a  further  subdivision 


FUBST's  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE.  667 

depending  on  number  and  person,  and  arranged  as  follows :  first, 
the  third  pers.  masc.  sing.,  since  it  usually  constitutes  the  root  of 
the  verb ;  next,  the  third  pers.  fern.  sing. ;  then,  the  sec.  pers. 
masc.  sing.  &c.  as  laid  down  in  most  grammars  of  the  language. 
For  the  sake  of  uniformity  the  same  arrangement  should  be 
observed  in  the  future  tense,  since  no  regular  disposition  of  the 
persons  can  be  effected  by  observing  the  alphabetical  order  of 
their  preformatives.  The  persons  of  each  tense  should  be  subdi- 
vided according  to  their  vowel  changes  and  the  suffixes  they  may 
receive,  and  these  again  according  to  their  prefixes.  The  impe- 
rative is  to  be  treated  in  all  respects  like  the  future. 

The  infinitives  and  participles  should  be  divided  into  absolute 
and  construct,  and  the  latter  also  into  singular  and  plural.  Besides 
these  divisions,  to  which  all  other  nouns  are  subjected,  participles 
and  adjectives  are  to  be  still  further  subdivided  into  masculine 
and  feminine.  Suffixes  and  prefixes  give  rise  to  new  subdivisions 
in  the  nouns  as  well  as  in  the  verbs. 

The  order  then  in  which  the  different  parts  of  a  verb  and  the 
nouns  derived  from  it  will  succeed  each  other  according  to  this 
method  is  as  follows.  First,  we  have  the  third  pers.  masc.  sing, 
preterite  Kal  of  the  verb,  as  for  instance  btp,  and  immediately 
under  it  the  passages  of  the  Bible  in  which  it  appears.  The  next 
is  the  form  bciP  which  diflfers  from  the  preceding  only  by  a  vowel 
change  arising  from  the  reception  of  a  pause-accent ;  here  too,  as 
in  all  other  instances,  the  quotations  containing  the  word  are  placed 
directly  beneath  it.  The  same  word  is  again  given,  accompanied 
by  its  prefixes  ;  thus  '^'^PJJ^,  i?p^\  It  next  appears  with  the  prono- 
minal suffixes,  arranged  in  the  order  of  the  persons,  first,  second, 
and  third ;  and  each  like  the  nude  form,  with  its  prefixes,  e.  g. 
1.  '^s^Jiv  ''5i?^,1'»  ""55?!^^ ;  2  m.  ?|bc)0,  &c.  ifec.  When  the  third  pers. 
masc.  sing,  of  the  verb  is  thus  disposed  of,  the  third  person  fern,  is 
treated  in  the  same  manner ;  and  so  on  through  all  the  persons 
and  both  numbers  of  the  preterite,  future,  and  imperative  of  the 
Kal  species. 

Alter  the  imperative  are  placed  the  verbal  nouns  belonging 
to  the  species,  viz.  the  infinitive  and  participle.  The  infinitive 
is  given  in  the  nude  form  of  the  absolute,  as  ita;?,  and  then 
with  n  interrogative  and  1  conjunctive.  This  is  followed  by  the 
construct  state,  first  with  the  prepositions  3,  J,  ^,  -p^  alone ;  and 
next  with  the  personal  pronouns  both  without  and  with  the  prepo- 
sitions, thus  ^bt:D,  '^bt:p3,  'ibtops,  &c. ;  ^^ep,  n^t:p3,  &c.  &;c.  Of 
the  participles  active  and  passive  the  masculine  form  is  gone 
through  first,  both  singular  and  plural,  and  afterwards  the  feminine; 
both  numbers  bein^r  subjected  to  a  subdivision  according  to  their 
suffixes  and  prefixes,  similar  to  that  of  the  infinitive. 

All  the  forms  belonging  to  Kal  being  thus  exhausted,  the  remain- 
ing species  are  treated  in  the  same  manner,  until  the  entire  verb 
has  been  disposed  of.     The  derivative  nouns  from  the  same  root 


568  FUBST's  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE. 

are  then  taken  up,  beginning  with  the  simplest  and  ending  with  the 
most  complex;  accordingly  we  have  first  those  which  are  derived 
from  the  root  by  a  mere  vowel  change,  next  those  which  receive 
a  preformative  or  afformative  letter  or  syllable,  and  lastly  such  as 

take  both. 

The  passages  quoted  from  the  Bible  should  succeed  each  other 
in  the  order  of  chronology,  as  this  will  assist  the  inquirer  in  ascer- 
taining the  comparative  antiquity  of  the  various  senses  in  which  a 
word  may  be  employed. 

III.  The  above  is  our  opinion  as  to  the  mode  which  should  be 
pursued  in  constructing  a  Hebrew  concordance  so  as  to  be  most 
conveniently  and  profitably  consulted.  We  have  now  to  speak 
concerning  the  uses  to  which  a  properly  executed  work  of  this 
description  is  capable  of  being  applied.  In  so  doing,  our  remarks 
will  refer  to  the  assistance  it  gives,  1.  to  an  editor  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  as  affording  the  best  means  of  restoring  and  preserving 
the  purity  of  the  text ;  2.  to  the  Hebrew  lexicographer  and  gram- 
marian ;  3.  to  the  interpreter  of  Scripture  and  to  biblical  students 
in  general. 

1.  The  most  important  service  which  a  concordance  renders  to  the 
editor  of  a  Hebrew  Bible,  is  that  of  enabling  him,  by  consulting  the 
fragments  of  the  Masora,  to  apply  at  once  to  the  original  sources 
of  information  respecting  the  true  orthography  of  doubtful  words» 
instead  of  being  under  the  necessity  of  blindly  following  in  the  track 
of  his  predecessors,  perpetuating  if  not  indeed  aggravating  the 
errors  they  may  have  committed.  In  order  to  place  this  fact  in 
its  clearest  light,  we  will  here  give  a  brief  account  of  the  Masora 
itself. 

The  word  Masora  (nno^)  or  Masoreth  (n^iD^)»  signifying  tra- 
dition, is  used  to  denote  a  collection  of  critical  remarks  relative  to 
the  text  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  which,  according  to  the  Talmud- 
ists,  was  settled  by  the  High  Synod,  an  assembly  of  the  most  wise 
and  learned  men  of  the  Jewish  nation,  constituted  immediately  after 
the  return  from  the  Babylonian  captivity,  with  Ezra  the  high  priest 
at  their  head.  These  are  said  to  have  collected  the  numerous 
ancient  traditions  respecting  the  divisions,  verses,  words,  letters,  and 
pK>ints  of  the  Bible,  and  to  have  employed  them  in  a  thorough  revi- 
sion of  the  text,  undertaken  with  a  view  of  restoring  it  if  possible 
to  its  pristine  purity,  and  of  guarding  against  its  subsequent  deterio- 
ration. The  mass  of  ancient  critical  remarks  thus  brought  together^ 
with  the  additions  made  to  them  by  the  members  of  the  feynod, 
continued  to  be  preserved  and  taught  in  the  schools  of  Judea  until 
about  the  middle  of  the  third  century  of  the  Christian  era,  when 
the  chief  seat  of  Jewish  learning  was  removed  to  Babylon.  There, 
according  to  the  Jewish  Chronicles,  it  continued  to  flourish  for  a 
space  of  eight  hundred  years,  when  at  length  the  schools  were 
broken  u^,  and  the  learned  men  scattered  through  Spain  and  other 
parts  of  Europe.  About  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century  the 
fragments  of  the  Masora  were  collected,  revised,  and  published  by 


569 

R.  Jacob  ben  Hhayim  in  the  Rabbinical  Bible  printed  by  Daniel 
Romberg  at  Venice. 

The  Masora  is  divided  into  greater  and  less  ;  or,  more  properly 
speaking,  there  are  two  Masoras,  which  respectively  bear  these 
appellations.  The  greater  Masora,  which  formerly  constituted  a 
large  independent  work,  is  printed  in  Romberg's  Bible  in  the  margin 
of  the  text,  both  above  and  beneath  it,  and  likewise  down  the  side 
when  the  brevity  of  the  Rabbinical  commentary  leaves  room.  It 
states  the  number  of  times  that  words  of  uncommon  occurrence  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Pentateuch  or  in  the  whole  Bible  ;  how  often 
words  appear  in  unusual  connexions  ;  how  often  they  receive 
certain  vowels  and  accents;  and  how  often  words  usually  written 
fully,  i.  e.  with  one  of  the  semivowels,  are  to  be  found  defective  or 
without  them,  and  vice  versa.  It  also  points  out  the  K'ri  and 
C*thibh,  and  records  the  number  of  sections,  verses,  words,  and 
even  letters  in  each  book  and  in  the  entire  Bible.  The  lesser 
Masora  consists  of  extracts  from  the  greater,  and  is  commonly 
placed  between  the  text  and  the  Rabbinical  commentaries.  It  is 
composed  chiefly  of  numeral  letters  and  abbreviations,  showing 
how  often  certain  words  occur  in  the  Bible,  but  without  quoting  or 
referring  to  the  passages  where  they  are  found,  except  in  the  case 
of  such  as  appear  only  twice.  The  greater  Masora  gives  the  pas- 
sages but  not  their  places. 

Many  attempts  have  been  made  by  Jewish  writers  to  determine 
the  date  of  the  origin  of  the  Masoretic  scholia,  and  to  account  for 
the  various  readings  they  exhibit,  without  at  the  same  time  impugn- 
ing the  integrity  of  the  sacred  text.  The  principal  opinions  broached 
by  them  on  this  subject  are  as  follows  : 

Aphodi,  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  his  grammatical  treatise,  says 
that  "  Ezra  the  high  priest  endeavoured  to  correct  all  the  faults  of 
manuscripts,  as  did  also  to  the  utmost  of  their  abilities  the  learned 
men  who  succeeded  him,  in  order  that  they  might  hand  them  down 
to  us  in  a  perfect  state.  To  this  end  they  numbered  the  sections, 
verses,  words,  and  letters  of  the  Bible,  noting  those  words  which 
were  written  fully,  defectively,  and  irregularly,  together  with  the 
different  opinions  of  the  learned  concerning  them.  All  these  obser- 
vations they  collected  into  books,  which  form  the  fragments  of 
the  Masora;  and  in  those  places  where  they  found  mistakes  or 
disputes,  they  put  the  various  readings  in  the  form  of  K*ri  and 
C'thibh." 

With  this  statement  Kimhhi  in  the  main  agrees.  In  the  preface 
to  his  commentary  on  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
he  observes  :  "  It  would  appear  that  these  words  (viz.  those  with 
respect  to  which  a  diversity  of  opinion  is  expressed  in  the  Masora) 
were  found  variously  written  in  different  manuscripts:  for  during 
the  first  captivity  the  sacred  books  became  lost  or  corrupted,  and 
the  learned  men  died  ;  so  that  when  the  High  Synod,  who  under- 
took the  restoration  of  the  text,  found  their  manuscripts  to  disagree, 


570  FUBST's  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE. 

they  followed  the  majority  in  the  text,  and  placed  the  variations  in 
the  margin.** 

This  theory  of  Aphodi  and  Kimhhi,  however,  is  strongly 
opposed  by  Abarbanel  in  the  preface  to  his  commentary  on  Jere- 
miah, where  he  makes  the  following  remarks:  "1st.  How  can 
any  one  believe  and  maintain  that  Ezra  could  possibly  have  found 
the  Book  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  defective  or  corrupt — that 
Book  of  which,  if  a  single  word  or  letter  be  wanting,  no  use  can 
ever  be  made  ?  yet  according  to  these  writers  there  must  be 
wanting  many  letters ! 

*«  2d.  If  it  were  true  that  after  Ezra's  having  found  in  the  manu- 
scripts corrupt  or  doubtful  words,  he,  being  uncertain  as  to  which 
was  the  true  reading,  placed  one  in  the  text  and  the  other  in  the 
margin,  or  pointed  the  words  in  the  text  according  to  a  reading 
different  from  that  indicated  by  the  letters,  wherefore  do  we  always 
adhere  to  the  K'ri  and  disregard  the  C'thibh  ?  or  wherefore  did 
Ezra  always  point  according  to  the  K'ri  ?  and  if  he  considered 
those  to  be  the  genuine  readings,  why  did  he  not  insert  them  in 
the  text,  and  place  the  C'thibh  in  the  margin  ? 

"  3d.  If  the  K'ri  and  C'thibh  owe  their  origin  to  the  corruptions 
that  took  place  during  the  captivity,  and  thus  be  the  work  of  mere 
accident,  whence  comes  it  that  the  same  word  appears  in  different 

E laces  with  the  same  K'ri  and  C'thibh  ?  Thus,  for  example,  we 
•equently  find  s^nns  in  the  K'ri  for  ti^^:i'2  in  the  C'thibh,  n-i53  for 
*w?r.  and  always  fiiiint:  for  t'lbe^.  and  nssiD'^  for  rebao^*  which 
cannot  assuredly  be  the  result  of  chance." 

The  conclusion  to  which  Abarbanel  comes,  is,  that  Ezra  and 
his  contemporaries  found  the  Book  of  the  Law  in  a  perfect  con- 
dition. He  supposes  that  Ezra,  before  settling  the  vowel-points, 
accents,  and  the  division  into  verses,  subjected  the  text  to  a 
thorough  revision ;  and  that  those  words  which  exhibited  some 
singularity  of  form  or  construction  he  either  considered  as  written 
so  intentionally  and  with  some  mysterious  import,  on  which 
account  he  left  them  as  they  stood  in  the  text,  and  placed  in  the 
margin  the  word  or  form  which  grammatical  analogy  or  the  con- 
text seemed  to  require ;  or  possibly  he  regarded  them  as  arising 
from  negligence  or  ignorance  of  the  proper  orthography,  in  short, 
as  errors  of  the  prophet's  own  making  (ts'ibcn  '^D&bya  t^^T^n  mao:3)> 
and  therefore,  not  venturing  to  alter  the  writings  of  those  who 
spoke  by  inspiration,  inserted  in  the  margin  his  corrections,  in 
making  which  he  doubtless  only  followed  the  opinions  of  antiquity 
which  had  reached  him  by  tradition. 

This  writer  is  opposed  in  turn  by  R.  Jacob  ben  Hhayim,  the 
editor  of  Bomberg's  Rabbinical  Bible.  Although  he  agrees  with 
Abarbanel  in  rejecting  the  supposition  of  Aphodi  and  Kimhhi,  that 
Ezra  found  the  manuscripts  to  differ  from  each  other ;  yet  he  will 
not  allow  that  the  K'ri  could  in  any  way  have  proceeded  from 
Ezra,  it  being  contrary  to  the  authority  of  the  Talmud,  which 
declares  that  Moses  received  them  on  Mount  Sinai.     Thus  R. 


571 

Gedalya,  in  Shalsheleth  Hakkabala,  says,  "  I  am  persuaded  that 
all  these  things  (i.  e.  those  of  which  the  Masora  treats)  were 
delivered  to  Moses  on  Sinai,  and  afterwards  neglected  and  forgot- 
ten in  the  lapse  of  time ;  or  else  they  were  never  committed  to 
writing,  until  the  members  of  the  Great  Synod  performed  that 
service,  and  communicated  them  to  all  Israel."  The  same  senti- 
ments are  delivered  by  R.  Isaac  in  the  Mikra  Sopherim. 

From  this,  says  Ben  Hhayim,  it  is  evident  that  the  K'ri  are  to 
be  considered  as  a  series  of  observations  on  certain  strange  forms 
of  the  C'thibh,  collected  indeed  and  applied  by  Ezra,  but  proceed- 
ing from  Moses  himself;  while  the  hypothesis  of  Abarbanel,  that 
they  may  have  originated  in  the  carelessness  of  the  prophets,  is 
scarcely  worthy  a  serious  refutation.  For  how  can  it  for  a 
moment  be  imagined  that  the  inspired  penmen  were  liable  to  error 
from  such  a  cause  ?  and  if  they  had  suffered  an  occasional  ortho- 
graphical mistake  to  escape  them  in  the  ardour  of  composition,  is 
it  to  be  supposed  that  they  would  not  afterwards  have  taken  the 
pains  to  correct  it  ?  Yet  we  find  the  same  K'ri  and  C'thibh 
repeatedly  occurring  in  Jeremiah,  whose  prophecy  contains  one 
hundred  and  thirty-three  of  these  various  readings  ! 

Again,  in  the  tract  Sopherim  (ch.  6),  it  is  stated  that  three  ma- 
nuscripts were  found  by  Ezra  ;  that  in  one  of  them  was  written 
6np  %ibfi^  y\:i)2y  and  in  the  other  two  'lan  n3i3>?a,  upon  which  he 
adopted  the  latter  reading  and  disregarded  the  former.  So  too  he 
found  in  one  manuscript  b6<nr*i  ^^rn  "laitJt  bm  and  in  the  remaining  two 
ifi^^o  "i^n  "^i^SH  bm,  and  in  like  manner  decided  according  to  the  ma- 
jority. From  this  R.  Jacob  proceeds  to  argue  against  the  opinion  of 
Abarbanel  that  E^ra  wrote  the  K'ri  because  he  doubted  the  correct- 
ness of  the  C'thibh  ;  for,  says  he,  if  this  were  true,  why  did  he  not,  as  in 
the  cases  just  mentioned,  consult  the  manuscripts  in  his  possession, 
and  follow  the  testimony  of  the  majority  ?  And  if  all  the  manu- 
scripts agreed,  why  did  he  not  show  how  those  words  are  to  be 
read  in  the  synagogue  roll,  concerning  which  it  is  commanded 
that  not  one  letter  be  pronounced  which  is  not  written  ?  Again, 
if  Ezra  were  in  reality  the  author  of  the  K'ri,  how  could  the 
custom  which  now  obtains  ever  have  arisen,  of  reading  in  accord- 
ance with  it  and  neglecting  the  C'thibh,  which  all  acknowledge  to 
have  proceeded  from  the  finger  of  God  ?  In  this  way  he  comes 
to  the  conclusion,  agreeable  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Talmud,  that 
all  the  K*ri  and  C'thibh  were  delivered  to  Moses  on  Sinai,  except- 
ing the  instances  mentioned  in  the  tract  Sopherim,  where  Ezra 
was  in  doubt,  in  consequence  of  the  discrepancy  of  manuscripts, 
and  followed  the  majority. 

Yet,  notwithstanding  the  great  antiquity  and  consequent  high 
authority,  which  are  thus  ascribed  to  the  Masora,  we  meet  with  a 
number  of  cases  in  which  the  Masora  and  the  Talmud  disagree. 
Thus  we  read  in  the  traet  Nidda ;  "  In  the  passage  oai'^  Dmn  Jtosm 
l^nan  v^ev.  xv.  10),  the  word  J^cDm  is  written  defectively;"  but 
the  Masora  affirms  it  to  be  written  fully.     In  the  tract  Shabbath, 


fiHi  FURST's   HEBREW    CONCORDANCE. 

Rabbi  Huna  says,  "  In  the  word  on'^ny^a  (1  Sam.  ii.  24),  the  plural 
termination  is  defective.**  Jarchi  expresses  his  astonishment  at 
this,  and  declares  it  to  be  erroneous  ;  since  the  most  correct  edi- 
tions give  the  word  fully  t)-'"i"'ny?3,  and  the  great  Masora  makes  no 
mention  of  its  being  defective.  Jarchi,  however,  was  not  war- 
'  ranted  in  contravening  the  statement  of  R.  Huna  on  this  latter 
account,  since  he  himself  is  frequently  found  to  differ  from  the 
Masora ;  and  in  this  he  is  by  no  means  alone  among  the  Rabbini- 
cal writers. 

In  consequence  of  the  opinion  expressed  by  the  Talmudists  rela- 
tive to  the  origin  of  the  Masora,  to  which  they  gave  the  name  of 
n*nnb  a"^©.  or  hedge  around  the  law,  it  has  for  ages  been  regarded 
as  an  authority  superior  to  the  Talmud  itself.  And  although  we 
cannot  concur  in  assigning  to  the  Masora  the  high  antiquity  claim- 
ed for  it,  or  in  considering  the  various  readings  which  it  points  out 
as  indicative  of  certain  mysterious  significations,  we  are  still  com- 
pelled to  acknowledge  the  unwearied  assiduity  of  those  men, 
whoever  they  were,  who  exerted  their  best  efforts  in  endeavour- 
,  ing  to  remove  from  the  written  word  of  God  the  slight  yet  nume- 
rous imperfections  by  which  it  had  gradually  become  defaced. 
The  Masora  in  fact  is  a  most  important  and  useful  collection  of 
ancient  critical  remarks,  the  constant  consultation  of  which  is 
indispensably  necessary  to  every  editor  of  a  Hebrew  Bible  who 
is  inspired  with  the  laudable  ambition  of  improving  upon  the 
labours  of  those  who  have  gone  before  him  ;  for  the  mind  gifted 
with  the  highest  critical  powers  will  not  refuse  assent  to  the  truth 
of  the  Talmudic  axiom  :  the  older  the  traditioji,  the  greater  its 
value  (I'Tian?:  nB'^  ^Ti  i^i'^nn^  ya^r^  is). 

But  how  are  the  secret  recesses  of  the  Masora  to  be  penetrated, 
and  its  abundant  materials  rendered  accessible  for  use  ?  This  can 
be  accomplished  only  with  the  assistance  of  a  competent  guide, 
and  such  a  guide  is  the  concordance.  By  means  of  it  the  inquirer 
is  enabled  to  ascertain,  from  the  forms  and  connexions  of  the 
words  referred  to  by  the  Masora,  their  places  in  the  Bible  ;  and  is 
thus  relieved  from  the  necessity  of  relying  upon  the  correctness 
and  completeness  of  the  testimony  of  others.  The  learned  Ben 
Hhayim  thus  expresses  his  sense  of  the  services  rendered  him  by 
R.  Nathan's  Concordance  (of  which  hereafter)  in  making  use  of 
the  Masora,  as  well  as  in  collecting  its  fragments  from  the  different 
manuscripts  in  which  it  was  contained  : 

•*  In  performing  the  revision  of  the  biblical  text,  the  task  of  find- 
ing out  the  verses  would  have  been  impossible  for  me,  without 
knowing  the  whole  of  the  Bible  by  heart,  which  I  do  not ;  so  that 
•if  I  had  not  had  the  assistance  of  a  book  called  a  concordance, 
which  a  learned  man,  R.  Isaac  Nathan  by  name,  about  forty  years 
ago  composed  and  printed  here  at  Venice,  I  must  have  resigned 
my  undertaking.  This  is  a  precious  work,  which  enumerates  and 
explams  all  the  members  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  placing  every 
noun  and  verb  with  its  like,  and  stating  at  the  head  the  meaning 


FURSt'S  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE.  573 

or  meanings  of  each  word,  according  to  which  the  different  pas- 
sages are  divided  and  enumerated,  with  references  to  book,  chapter, 
and  verse  ;  so  that  one  may  find  any  word  both  quickly  and  easily. 
The  advantages  of  such  a  work  are  incalculable,  and  without  it 
the  Masora  cannot  be  made  use  of:  for  if  we  wish  to  find  a  verse 
which  it  (the  Masora)  quotes,  we  know  not  in  what  book  it  is  to 
be  sought;  and  should  we  happen  to  know  the  book,  we  have  still 
to  hunt  out  the  section  and  the  verse.  Whoever  possesses  this  book, 
can  dispense  with  Kimhhi's  Otsar  Hashshorashim  :*  in  short, 
deprived  of  its  aid,  I  never  could  have   performed   what  I  have." 

2.  The  utility  of  the  concordance  is  not  limited  to  furnishing 
good  editions  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  ;  it  likewise  extends  to 
the  obtaining  of  an  accurate  knowledge  of  their  contents.  This 
it  accomplishes  in  good  measure*  by  the  aid  it  affords  the  Hebrew 
lexicographer.  We  shall,  perhaps,  make  ourselves  better  under- 
stood, if  we  commence  our  remarks  on  this  topic  by  concisely 
stating  the  objects  which  the  lexicographer  should  have  in  view, 
and  the  means  al  his  command  for  effecting  them. 

The  principal  objects  then  of  the  Hebrew  lexicographer  should 
be,  to  ascertain  the  primitive  words  or  roots  of  the  language  ;  to 
exhibit  in  the  natural  order  of  their  development  the  derivatives 
which  spring  from  them  ;  to  state  the  primary  and  secondary 
significations  of  each  of  these  classes  of  words  ;  and  to  show  the 
degree  of  relationship  which  the  various  meanings  of  words  from 
the  same  root  bear  to  each  other  and  to  the  primitive  idea. 

In  order  to  comply  with  these  numerous  requisitions  (supposing 
him  to  be  without  the  assistance  of  any  previous  work  of  the  kind), 
he  must  begin  by  seeking  out  all  the  words  in  the  Bible,  and 
arranging  them  under  their  several  roots  in  the  order  of  their 
derivation  and  inflection.  This  done,  he  has  next  to  ascertain 
their  precise  significations,  in  which  he  is  aided  by  the  meanings  of 
words  from  cognate  roots;  the  context,  which  frequently  either 
settles  the  meaning  of  a  word  beyond  a  doubt,  or  furnishes  the 
strongest  presumptive  evidence  towards  a  decision  ;  the  ancient 
versions  and  commentaries,  which  often  contain  important  tradi- 
tional information,  reaching  back  to  the  period  when  the  language 
was  yet  a  living  one  ;  and  lastly,  the  cognate  dialects,  which  the 
great  progress  made  of  late  years  in  the  science  of  comparative 
philology  renders  of  immense  utility. 

Of  all  the  means  which  the  lexicographer  has  thus  at  his  disposal, 
those  afforded  by  the  Bible  itself,  in  exhibiting  all  the  forms  and 
connexions  in  which  words  are  employed,  undoubtedly  rank  the 
first.  And  it  is  only  when  this  evidence  has  been  carefully  con- 
sulted, that  other  sources  of  information  are  to  be  resorted  to, 
either  for  the  purpose  of  confirming  the  testimony  when  sufliciently 
full  and  explicit,  or  of  completing  it  when   defective.     One  who, 

*  We  have  already  mentioned  the  high  estimation  in  which  this  lexicon  is  held 
among  the  Jews. 


574  FURST's  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE. 

negleclinff  this  fundamental  precept,  hastens  to  other  quarters  in 
search  ot  aid,  before  having  completely  ascertained  and  duly 
considered  that  which  the  sacred  volume  offers  for  its  own  eluci- 
dation, runs  into  imminent  danger  pisb  vdw  ompn  b^D^^nn  d^'it  n^anb 
**  of  leading  strangers  into  the  holy  temple  without  need,"  an  error 
which  has  already  been  too  often  committed,  and  is  even  now  by 
no  means  of  unfrequent  occurrence. 

In  Hebrew,  as  in  other  languages,  some  primitive  w^ords  have 
few  or  no  derivatives,  while  from  others  a  large  number  are  formed 
in  a  great  variety  of  ways.  Again,  in  some  cases  derivative 
words  are  found  to  have  survived  their  primitives,  which  can 
now  be  discovered  only  by  analogy,  or  by  having  recourse  to 
the  cognate  tongues.  A  word  has  often  many  different  shades  of 
meaning,  which  depend  in  a  great  measure  on  the  connexions  in 
which  it  is  placed.  The  significations  too  of  the  various  forms 
which  a  word  assumes,  as,  for  example,  the  several  species  of  the 
verb,  often  differ  essentially  from  each  other ;  while  those  of  its 
derivatives  are  still  more  widely  separated.  These  derivative 
words  and  meanings,  however,  must  all,  if  possible,  be  exhibited  in 
a  natural  relation  to  each  other  as  well  as  to  the  original  word  and 
its  primary  signification. 

The  means  for  prosecuting  the  inquiries  necessary  to  the 
proper  accomplishment  of  this  object  are  abundantly  furnished 
by  the  Hebrew  concordance.  For,  besides  exhibiting  all  the 
words  of  the  Bible  with  their  connexions  and  the  places  where 
found,  it  is  also  of  essential  service  in  consulting  the  ancient  Jewish 
glosses  and  interpretations.  These,  although  containing  much 
that  may  be  made  available  for  lexicographical  purposes,  are 
yet  composed  with  such  a  total  want  of  system,  that  access  to  the 
valuable  hints  they  afford  respecting  the  etymology  of  words  can 
often  be  obtained  only  by  means  of  a  concordance  ;  the  reason 
being  that  a  word  is  often  passed  by  several  times  without  remark, 
and  is  afterwards  commented  upon  when  occurring  in  some  subse- 
quent passage. 

Of  no  less  importance  is  the  concordance  to  the  Hebrew 
grammarian.  As  far  as  relates  to  the  doctrine  of  the  derivation 
of  words,  and  the  modifications  of  meaning  accompanying  the 
changes  in  form  which  take  place  in  the  process,  the  several  duties 
of  the  lexicographer  and  grammarian  may  be  said  to  coincide. 
But  in  addition  to  this,  the  latter  is  required  to  ascertain  the  laws 
on  which  depend  the  orthographical  changes  arising  during  inflec- 
tion, and  to  account  on  natural  principles  for  the  origin  of  such  forms 
as  may  deviate  more  or  less  from  those  in  which  the  genius  of  the 
language  usually  exhibits  itself.  Besides  these  subjects  of  inquiry 
which  belong  to  the  department  of  etymologv,  the  grammarian  has 
also  to  mvestigate  the  principles  which  regulate  the  use  of  all  these 
forms  and  inflections  for  the  purpose  of  expressing  the  various 
operations  of  the  human  mind,  and  which  constitute  what  is  called 
the  syntax. 


FURSt's    HEBREW    CONCORDANCE.  575 

Now  the  facts  from  which  a  knowledge  of  these  principles  as 
relates  to  the  Hebrew  language  is  to  be  derived,  lie  scattered 
through  the  Bible ;  and  they  must  first  be  collected  and  systema- 
tized before  the  grammarian  can  hope  to  obtain  that  comprehen- 
sive view  of  them,  which  is  indispensable  to  his  success.  Thus, 
in  order  to  ascertain  the  rules  on  which  the  inflections  of  nouns 
depend,  it  is  necessary  to  trace  a  number  of  individuals  of  this 
part  of  speech  through  all  the  modifications  of  which  they  are 
susceptible.  But  what  an  expenditure  of  time  and  labour  would  it 
require,  to  hunt  for  them  through  a  book  of  such  extent  as  the 
Hebrew  Bible?  The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  making  similar 
investigations  with  regard  to  the  verbs,  owing  to  the  number  and 
variety  of  their  forms,  would  be,  if  not  insurmountable,  at  least 
incomparably  greater.  In  addition  to  the  regular  inflections  of 
the  language,  the  abnormal  forms,  as  we  have- already  observed, 
must  also  be  stated  and  explained  in  the  grammar  ;  yet  how  is  this 
to  be  done  in  a  proper  manner  unless  every  passage  be  known  in 
which  a  given  word  in  any  of  its  forms  occurs  ?  The  concordance 
alone  can  give  the  information  required. 

3.  If  it  be  allowed  that  the  concordance  serves  as  the  foundation 
to  Hebrew  lexicons  and  grammars,  and  is  consequently  superior  in 
authority  to  them  all,  it  follows  that  it  must  be  of  the  greatest 
value  to  the  biblical  interpreter,  whose  success  in  elucidating  the 
Scriptures  depends  in  good  measure  on  the  extent  and  accuracy 
of  his  knowledge  of  the  language  in  which  they  are  contained. 
Moreover,  the  strength  of  the  intelligent  interpreter  consists  chiefly 
in  bringing  forward  new  suggestions  on  difficult  points,  and  in 
supporting  them  by  the  appropriate  citation  of  parallel  passages, 
which  makes  the  Bible  its  own  expositor;  for  this  the  concordance 
is  peculiarly  intended.  He  will  also  find  it  of  great  assistance  in 
turning  to  the  productions  of  the  ancient  Jewish  commentators, 
which,  owing  to  their  absence  of  method,  would  otherwise  be 
exceedingly  difficult  to  consult. 

The  use  of  the  concordance  in  an  exegetical  point  of  view  is 
not  confined  to  the  finished  Hebrew  scholar,  who  aims  at  carrying 
forward  the  science  of  the  language ;  it  extends  also  to  the  far 
more  numerous  class  of  students  who  have  acquired  sufficient 
knowledge  of  it  to  enable  them  to  consult  and  even  peruse  their 
Hebrew  Bibles,  but  who  do  not  possess  that  familiar  acquaintance 
with  its  minutiae,  which  alone  can  confer  the  power  of  deciding  in 
all  cases  with  certainty  respecting  grammatical  forms.  The  lia- 
bility of  such  to  error  is  greatest  with  respect  to  the  most  impor- 
tant part  of  speech,  viz.  the  verbs,  of  which  there  are  a  multitude 
of  similar  and  abnormal  forms,  the  confounding  of  which  may 
lead  to  serious  errors  of  interpretation.  A  concordance  in  a 
great  measure  obviates  these  difficulties  ;  since,  by  presenting 
the  student  in  regular  order  with  all  the  forms  of  every  word, 
it  affords  an  instantaneous  solution  of  many  a  doubt,  which  he 


576  FURSt's    HEBREW    CONCORDANCE. 

might  be  unable  to  solve  by  means  of  the  grammar  and  lexicon 
alone. 

From  the  preceding  observations  on  the  utility  of  the  concord- 
ance to  different  classes  of  scholars,  it  will  be  obvious  that  it  con- 
stitutes the  foundation  of  the  whole  apparatus  of  biblical  learning. 
This  Uai  so  long  been  apparent  to  those  who  have  reflected  on  the 
subject,  that  even  while  the  art  of  printing  was  yet  in  its  infancy, 
and  when  the  undertaking  of  largo  and  expensive  publications  was 
attended  with  much  greater  difficulty  and  risk  of  pecuniary  loss 
than  at  the  present  day,  we  find  voluminous  concordances  in  differ- 
ent languages  issuing  from  the  press,  whose  magnitude  and  labori- 
ous execution  challenge  our  admiration. 

4.  We  will  now  complete  what  we  have  to  say  on  concordances 
in  general  by  a  short  history  of  such  works  to  the  present  time. 
And  as  our  principal  object  in  undertaking  this  sketch  is  to  give  an 
account  of  concordances  to  the  Hebrew  Bible,  we  will  first  briefly 
mention  those  compiled  for  the  Latin  Vulgate,  previous  to  the  pub- 
lication of  the  first  of  the  Hebrew  concordances,  and  then  confine 
our  observations  to  the  latter. 

The  author  of  the  first  Latin  concordance,  or  rather  of  the  first 
rudiments  of  one,  for  it  appears  to  have  been  little  more,  was 
Antonio  de  Padua,  a  Spanish  Franciscan,  who  lived  during  the 
pontificate  of  Gregory  IX.,  and  who,  for  his  wonderful  facility  in 
quoting  the  Scriptures,  received  from  that  Pope  the  title  of  Ark  of 
the  Covenant.  He  died  in  123L  The  second  concordance  to  the 
Vulgate,  which  indeed  was  the  first  worthy  of  the  name,  was  the 
production  of  the  celebrated  Cardinal  Hugo,  considered  by  many 
to  have  been  the  author  of  the  existing  division  of  the  Bible  into 
chapters,  and  who  died  at  Rome  in  the  year  1262.  His  work 
included  only  the  common  nouns  and  verbs.  The  third  of  the  kind 
was  that  of  Pere  Arloto,  a  native  of  Tuscany,  who  lived  under 
the  emperor  Adolphus,  about  the  close  of  the  thirteenth  century. 
With  him  was  contemporary  Conrad  of  Halberstadt,  a  German 
priest  and  professor  of  theology,  who  rendered  the  concordance 
more  complete  by  the  introduction  of  the  particles.  This  depart- 
ment, however,  remained  in  an  extremely  defective  state  until  the 
year  1431),  when  Johannes  de  Segovia,  a  Toledan  canon,  published 
one  containing  the  particles  alone,  which  cost  himself  and  an 
assistant  five  years  of  labour. 

The  first  concordance  to  the  Hebrew  Bible  was  that  composed 
by  Rabbi  Isaac*  Nathan,  who  was  occupied  on  the  work  ten  years, 
and  completed  it  in  1448.  According  to  the  account  given  by 
himself  in  the  preface,  it  was  a  mere  translation  or  counterpart  of 

•  In  the  title  of  his  work  he  is  styled  R.  Mordecai  Nathan,  and  in  the  preface  R. 
£f  "''u  discrepancy  is  conjectured  by  Buxtorf,  with  great  probability,  to  have 

been  the  result  of  a  severe  sickness,  during  v*rhich  he  changed  his  name  :  a  practice 
ojwerrwl  even  amon^  the  Jews  of  the  present  day,  and  which  is  prescribed  in  the 
Talmud,  with  the  view  that  the  sufferer  may  thenceforth  be  regarded  by  God  as  a 
new  being,  and  thus  be  delivered  from  the  fate  to  which  he  appeared  devoted. 


577 

a  Latin  concordance,  which  R.  Gedalya  in  his  historical  work,  the 
Shalsheleth  Hakkabala,  affirms  to  have  been  that  of  Arloto.  The 
principal  inducement  to  this  undertaking,  as  R.  Nathan  assures 
us,  was,  that  he  might  furnish  his  co-religionists  with  a  controver- 
sial weapon  which  had  been  employed  against  himself  by  Chris- 
tian theologians  with  the  greatest  effect.  So  high  was  his  opinion 
of  the  value  of  such  a  work,  and  so  earnestly  did  he  desire  to  see 
it  in  the  hands  of  his  people,  that  he  confesses  himself  to  have  has- 
tened its  publication  at  the  expense  of  its  completeness. 

We  find,  accordingly,  on  examining  the  work,  that  it  contains 
only  the  principal  words  of  the  language,  the  verbs  and  nouns. 
The  omission  of  the  particles  he  endeavours  to  excuse,  partly  on 
the  ground  of  their  want  of  independent  signification,  and  partly 
on  that  of  the  immense  number  of  times  they  occur,  which  would 
have  rendered  their  insertion  a  task  infinitely  tedious  and  labo- 
rious. For  this  reason  also  he  omits  the  proper  names.  The  exe- 
cution of  the  work  does  not  betray  those  marks  of  haste  which 
the  author*s  impatience  in  urging  it  forward  might  lead  us  to 
expect ;  but  we  cannot  say  as  much  for  its  plan,  which  is  both  ill- 
digested  and  inconvenient.  Of  this  the  following  sketch  will 
suffice. 

The  roots  are  printed  in  large  square  characters  without  points, 
and  accompanied  by  their  meanings  in  Rabbinic  Hebrew.  Under 
each  one  are  arranged  all  tlie  words  belonging  to  it,  without  any 
other  regard  to  system  than  the  placing  of  them  according  to  the 
books  of  the  Bible  in  which  they  are  found.  Thus,  for  example, 
under  the  root  ^nn  is  first  given  the  heading  n'^OHin  (Genesis),  and 
immediately  after  it  all  the  passages  of  this  book  which  contain 
any  form  of  any  word  belonging  to  ^n«,  with  references  at  the 
side  to  chapter  and  verse  in  Hebrew  numerals  ;  next  follow  all  the 
passages  from  Exodus  under  the  head  m?3B,  and  afterwards,  in 
regular  succession,  those  from  the  remaining  books.  A  feature  of 
the  work  which  we  h^ve  not  yet  noticed  is,  that  whenever  a  root 
has  two  or  more  significations,  each  of  them  is  made  to  constitute 
a  great  division,  under  which  are  placed  all  the  passages  in  which, 
according  to  the  author's  opinion,  that  particular  meaning  obtains. 
In  carrying  out  this  part  of  his  plan  he  appears  to  have  experi- 
enced no  inconsiderable  degree  of  difficulty  ;  for,  besides  placing 
words  under  the  wrong  signification,  which  he  not  unfrequenfly 
does,  we  find  that  he  sometimes  inserts  the  same  passage  under 
different  heads,  as  though  unable  or  unwilling  to  decide  as  to  the 
proper  one.  Words  which  are  derived  from  roots  formed  by  the 
addition  of  different  weak  letters  and  liquids  to  a  common  bilite- 
ral  theme,  and  bearing  the  same  general  meaning,  are  placed  by 
the  author  together  under  the  triliteral  most  in  use  ;  in  this  manner 
he  intermingles  words  from  ci'^st  and  o3h»  from  onn  and  ©n^,  from 
^TD'^  and  SB3,  from  yip  and  {isp*  &c.  Since  his  chief  object  was 
to  enable  the  inquirer  to  find  a  given  word  or  passage,  he  takes  no 
notice  of  words  written  fully  or  defectively,  or  of  the  K'ri  and  C'thibh. 

37 


(g^  FUBST'S  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE. 

The  Hebrew  Bible  having  not  yet  been  divided  into  chapters,  he 
makes  use  of  the  divisions  of  the  Latin  Vulgate  which  he  found  in 
his  original ;  the  references  to  them  are  by  no  means  free  from 
errors,  yet  they  are  far  from  abounding  to  the  degree  which  might 
have  been  anticipated  from  the  hasty  manner  in  which  the  book 
was  published. 

One  of  the  most  serious  faults  of  R.  Nathan*s  plan  is  that  of 
arranging  words  in  the  order  of  the  places  where  they  occur, 
and  not  according  to  their  grammatical  forms.  By  this  means 
serious  obstacles  are  presented  to  the  ready  consultation  of 
the  work  even  for  the  purpose  of  finding  a  given  word  or 
passage ;  for  should  the  inquirer  not  know  beforehand  in  what 
book  It  is  to  be  found,  he  will  probably  be  compelled  to  wade 
through  several  folio  pages  of  quotations  before  obtaining  the 
information  required.  These  inconveniences  are  greatly  aug- 
mented in  the  case  of  the  lexicographer  or  grammarian,  who 
desires  to  know  to  what  derivatives  each  root  has  given  birth  and 
in  what  forms  they  are  used  ;  since  to  ascertain  this  he  must 
examine  each  article  froni  beginning  to  end,  in  order  that  facts 
may  not  escape  him  which  a  properly  constructed  concordance 
would  exhibit  at  a  single  glance.* 

The  first  edition  of  R.  Nathan's  Concordance  was  published  by 
Daniel  Romberg  at  Venice  in  1523  ;  and  the  second  by  Ambrose 
Froben,  the  son  of  the  friend  and  patron  of  Erasmus,  at  Basle,  in 
1581 ;  this  corrected  some  of  the  errors  of  the  former,  but  intro- 
duced no  improvements.  The  third  was  that  of  Mario  de  Calasio, 
Hebrew  professor  at  Rome,  which  appeared  in  1621  in  four  vo- 
lumes folio.  Many  of  the  errors  both  in  the  quotations  and 
references  of  the  preceding  editions  were  here  corrected ;  yet 
the  general  plan  of  the  work  was  suflTered  to  remain  untouched. 
Its  immense  increase  in  size  was  in  part  owing  to  the  insertion 
of  most  of  the  Chaldee  words  in  Daniel  and  Ezra,  the  appending 
of  a  Latin  translation  to  Nathan's  expositions  of  the  meanings  of 
the  roots  with  additions  by  the  editor,  and  the  citation  and  explana- 
tion of  cognate  terms  and  synonyms  from  the  Rabbinic,  Aramaic, 
and  Arabic.  But  what  principally  contributed  to  swell  the  bulk  of 
this  edition  was  a  literal  Latin  version  of  all  the  quoted  passages 
placed  at  the  side  of  the  text,  with  citations  in  the  margin  of  the 
places  in  which  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  diflfer  from  the  inter- 
pretation given.  The  proper  names  of  persons  and  places  were 
also  added  in  the  form  of  an  appendix. 

The  radical  defects  and  numerous  errors  which  still  disfigured 
the  Hebrew  concordance  caused  the  elder  Buxtorf  to  undertake 
the  compilation  of  a  new  one,  which,  besides  being  more  complete 
and  correct  than  either  of  its  predecessors,  should  also  be  arranged 

•  Wh«t  will  the  reader  think  when  informed  that  we  hare  now  before  us  a  pro- 
•pectus  lately  isaued  in  London  for  the  publication  of  a  concordance,  dedicated  by 
permission  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  which  is  faithfully  to  copy  the  very  plan 
we  hare  now  been  deprecating  ? 


FURST's  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE.  579 

on  a  more  scientific  and  convenient  plan.  To  this  he  was  espe- 
cially induced  by  the  essential  service  the  concordance  had  ren- 
dered him  in  re-editing  Bomberg's  Rabbinical  Bible,  even  while  his 
attention  was  continually  drawn  to  its  many  imperfections.  The 
admirable  performance  in  which  his  labours  resulted  was  published 
after  his  death  under  the  superintendence  of  his  learned  son,  at 
Basle,  in  1632,  and  has  been  the  standard  work  ever  since.  As 
the  chief  merit  of  Buxtorf 's  Concordance  consists  rather  in  its  new 
and  excellent  plan  than  in  the  amount  of  its  corrections  and  addi- 
tions, we  will  describe  it  somewhat  in  detail. 

The  roots  are  arranged  in  the  same  manner  as  in  Kimhhi's  lexi- 
con, that  is,  the  triliterals  are  placed  in  alphabetical  order,  and  the 
multiliterals  are  collected  together  at  the  end  of  each  letter  of  the 
alphabet.  The  root  is  followed  by  R.  Nathan's  Hebrew  exposi- 
tion and  its  substance  in  Latin.  The  various  inflections  of  the 
root  and  its  derivatives  then  succeed  each  other  in  regular  gram- 
matical order.  Not  only  every  word,  but  also  every  one  of  its 
forms,  whether  arising  from  the  mere  change  of  a  vowel  or  con- 
sonant, or  from  the  reception  of  an  augment,  is  made  to  constitute 
a  separate  head.  These  are  printed  in  smaller  characters  than  the 
root,  and  are  accompanied  by  a  Latin  translation,  and  followed  by 
the  passages  from  the  Bible  in  which  they  occur,  with  reference  to 
book,  chapter  and  verse. 

The  verb  is  given  first,  beginning  with  the  Kal  species  in  all  its 
modes,  tenses,  numbers,  and  persons,  and  proceeding  with  the 
remainder  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  treated  in  the  grammars. 
Each  species  is  subdivided  as  follows  :  1.  The  Preterite  tense,  the 
persons  of  which  are  placed  in  the  order  of  third,  second,  and  first ; 
the  reason,  as  we  have  before  mentioned,  being  that  the  third  per- 
son constitutes  the  root.  Each  person  is  divided  into  several  heads 
according  to  the  suffixes  it  receives,  and  these  are  subjected  to  a 
further  subdivision  depending  on  the  prefixes.  2.  The  Participles, 
subdivided  according  to  their  numbers,  genders,  suffixes,  and  pre- 
fixes. 3.  The  Infinitive,  in  all  its  forms.  4.  The  Imperative.  5. 
The  Future  tense,  divided  and  subdivided  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  preterite,  excepting  only  the  arrangement  of  the  persons,  which 
is  here  reversed,  probably  because  the  first  commences  with  ». 
When  the  verb  has  been  completed,  the  nouns  belonging  to  the 
same  root  are  introduced  in  the  order  of  their  development.  These 
as  well  as  the  infinitives  and  participles  are  divided  according  to 
their  inflections  and  to  the  suffixes  and  prefixes  they  may  receive, 
in  the  manner  prescribed  in  the  portion  of  our  article  relating  to 
the  plan  of  a  concordance. 

The  concordance  is  thus  made  to  embrace  all  the  verbs  and 
common  nouns  of  the  language  extant  in  the  Bible,  excepting  a  few 
that  are  not  inserted  on  account  of  their  extremely  frequent  occur- 
rence. The  particles,  whether  derived  from  verbs  or  nouns,  are 
entirely  omitted,  as  are  also  the  proper  names.  The  biblical 
Chaldee,  added  by  the  younger  ^Mxtorf,  is  not  intermingled  with 


FUBST's  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE. 

the  Hebrew,  but  is  placed  by  itself  at  the  end  of  the  volume.  The 
words  of  the  quoted  passages  are  in  general  given  fully  or  defec- 
tively, as  thev  stand  in  the  text,  but  the  various  readings  indicated 
by  the  KVi  and  C'thibh  are  allowed  to  go  unnoticed.  The  refer- 
ences to  book,  chapter,  and  verse,  are  given,  as  in  the  work  of  R. 
Nathan,  in  Hebrew  letters ;  the  order  of  the  books  adopted  by 
the  latter,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  that  of  the  Vulgate,  is  like- 
"wise  retained. 

Buxtorf  succeeded  in  a  great  measure  in  correcting  the  most 
prominent  faults  of  his  predecessor  by  constructing  his  plan  on  a 
grammatical  basis,  not  only  separating  the  primitive  and  derivative 
words,  but  also  making  each  form  of  a  word  a  distinct  heading. 
These  improvements  rendered  the  concordance  so  well  adapted  to 
the  uses  for  which  it  is  designed,  that  the  work  of  Buxtorf  retained 
its  pre-eminence  for  more  than  two  centuries,  a  proud  testimony  to 
the  extensive  learning  and  the  praiseworthy  industry  of  its  author. 
When  speaking  of  the  deficiencies  which  the  advanced  state  of 
modern  science  enables  us  to  discern  in  the  works  of  such  men, 
we  should  do  it  in  the  spirit  of  filial  veneration  which  prompted 
the  Talmudic  expression  employed  by  himself  with  reference  to  his 
predecessors  :  ia  ^nannb  iD'imaj^  in^an  taip^a  our  fathers  have  left 
room  for  improvement. 

The  faults  of  plan  and  execution  with  which  the  work  of  Buxtorf 
is  fairly  chargeable,  although  comparatively  few,  are  yet  sufficiently 
numerous  to  render  an  improved  edition  desirable,  and  indeed 
necessary  for  the  present  age.  The  defects  of  its  plan  are  seen 
chiefly  in  the  lexicographical  portion,  and  in  the  influence  this  was 
sufTered  to  exert  upon  the  conduct  of  the  entire  work.  Although 
it  is  not  clear  that  a  concordance  should  be  required  to  embody  a 
lexicon  within  itself,  yet  when  this  is  undertaken,  it  is  to  be  expected 
that  it  will  offer  at  least  the  results  of  the  most  important 
discoveries  and  improvements  that  have  been  made  till  the 
time  of  its  publication.  As  we  have  already  mentioned,  the 
lexicographical  remarks  of  Buxtorf  are  taken  almost  wholly  from 
the  meagre  statements  of  R.  Nathan  respecting  the  significations 
of  words  as  determined  by  their  use  in  the  Bible,  or  by  Rabbinical 
commentators.  This  perhaps  was  doing  as  much  as  could  be 
expected  in  the  then  state  of  lexicographical  science  ;  but  as  every 
department  of  philology  has  of  late  years  been  brought  to  a  higher 
point  of  perfection  than  at  any  former  period,  Buxtorf 's  work  has 
come  to  be  regarded  with  all  its  acknowledged  excellence  as  want- 
ing in  many  important  particulars. 

The  influence  which  Buxtorf 's  lexicographical  views  had  upon 
the  arrangement  of  the  concordance  was  of  greater  detriment  than 
their  more  immediate  consequences,  since  they  caused  him  to  follow 
Nathan  in  arranging  the  words  of  each  root  under  the  several 
meanings  assigned  to  it  in  the  outset.  The  author's  intention  in 
so  doing  was  doubtless  to  increase  the  value  of  his  work  to  students 
of  the  Hebrew,  by  affording  them  the  means  of  ascertaining  with 


FURSt's  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE.  581 

certainty  the  literal  meaning  of  every  passage  of  Scripture.  But 
in  reality  this  was  a  serious  defect ;  since  by  distributing  passages 
which  contain  the  same  word  under  various  heads,  the  work  is 
rendered  more  troublesome  to  consult,  and,  what  is  worse,  the  chief 
ends  of  a  concordance  are  in  a  great  measure  defeated  by  fettering 
the  judgment  of  the  lexicographer  and  interpreter,  for  whose  deci- 
sions it  should  merely  furnish  the  materials. 

These  faults  in  the  plan  of  BuxtorPs  work  in  addition  to  many 
in  its  execution,  as  for  instance  the  omission  of  hundreds  of  citations 
and  even  entire  articles,  besides  a  multitude  of  typographical  errors, 
all  combine  to  insure  a  favourable  reception  for  a  new  concordance 
designed  to  embody  the  improvements  which  the  progress  of  phi- 
lological science,  and  the  accumulation  of  materials,  have  now 
rendered  both  practicable  and  requisite.  And  we  feel  happy  in 
being  able  to  state,  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  work  of  Dr. 
Julius  Fiirst,  that  as  a  concordance  it  completely  answers  every 
reasonable  demand,  while  its  excellence  in  point  of  lexicography  is 
such  as  to  exceed  the  most  sanguine  expectations.  This  latter 
subject  we  have  already  discussed  in  the  early  part  of  our  article  ; 
it  therefore  remains  for  us  only  to  offer  a  few  observations  on  the 
author's  concordance,  properly  so  called,  as  distinguished  from  that 
of  Buxtorf 

He  gives  in  the  same  manner  and  order  as  Buxtorf  the  forms  of 
words  both  primitive  and  derivative  ;  but  by  placing  together  all 
the  passages  which  contain  words  agreeing  in  form  and  gram- 
matical derivation,  and  differing  only  in  use,  he  leaves  the  precise 
significations  of  words  to  be  ascertained  from  their  connexions,  aided 
by  his  own  masterly  etymologico-historical  illustrations,  and  thus 
avoids  the  grave  error  into  which  Buxtorf  had  suffered  himself  to  be 
led  by  the  example  of  his  predecessor.  Rabbi  Nathan.  Dr.  Furst  has 
likewise  endeavoured  to  combine  the  double  ad  vantages  of  the  alpha- 
betic and  scientific  modes  of  arrangement,  by  inserting  in  the  order 
of  the  alphabet  the  forms  of  such  derivatives  from  imperfect  roots 
as  do  not  contain  all  the  radical  letters.  These  are  accompanied 
by  references  to  the  pages  in  which  they  regularly  occur  accord- 
ing to  their  etymology,  and  cannot  but  prove  very  acceptable  to 
students  not  perfectly  familiar  with  the  niceties  of  formation.  The 
insertion  of  the  Chaldee  words  in  the  body  of  the  work  immedi- 
ately after  their  respective  Hebrew  equivalents,  we  regard  as 
another  decided  improvement,  since  it  affords  the  means  of  readily 
comparing  the  uses  of  a  word  in  both  languages,  which  often  throw 
considerable  light  on  one  another. 

Besides  these  advantages  in  the  plan  of  Dr.  Furst's  concordance, 
it  also  excels  that  of  Buxtorf  in  completeness.  This  is  chiefly 
observable  in  the  following  points. 

1.  He  inserts  some  entire  articles,  verbs  as  well  as  nouns,  which 
Buxtorf,  after  R.  Nathan,  had  omitted  on  account  of  their  frequent 
occurrence. 


fjjgt  PURST's    HEBREW    CONCORDANCE. 

%  He  inserts  all  the  particles,  both  Hebrew  and  Chaldee,  which 
are  derived  from  verbs. 

8.  He  gives  many  hundred  quotations  more  than  Buxtorf. 
These  he  obtained  partly  from  an  examination  and  comparison  of 
various  lexicographical  works,  and  partly  from  the  collections  of 
other  scholars  to  which  he  was  allowed  access.  Among  these 
latter  was  one  of  more  than  six  hundred  passages  noted  in  a  copy 
of  Buitorf  by  the  learned  Jewish  grammarian,  Wolff  Heidenheim. 
The  effects  of  this  large  accession  of  materials  soon  became  appa- 
rent ;  thus  under 

''aKi  Buxtorf  cites  two  passages,  and  Fiirst /owr. 

te'ian  Buxtorf  has  not  Gen.  xxxi.  9,  given  by  Fiirst ;  it  should, 
however,  have  been  referred  to  xxxi.  8. 

n*'2fit  Buxtorf  omits  Num.  xxx.  5,  and  Judg.  xix.,  3  which  Fiirst 
inserts. 

wra»  Furst  gives  three  passages  not  found  in  Buxtorf,  viz. 
2  Chron.  vii.  22,  xxx.  7,  22,  &c.  &c. 

Dr.  Furst  is  also  more  correct  than  his  predecessor  in  many 
minor  details.  For  example,  Buxtorf  places  ^aj^  Deut.  xxxii.  28 
under  the  head  infc<,  Cjon  Deut.  xiii.  1  under  Cjori,  I'^nj^b  1  Sam. 
xiii.  24  under  ^ij^b ;  tne  form  ia»i  is  likewise  retained  in  quoting 
the  passage  under  ny^.  All  these  errors  Dr.  Fiirst  corrects.  He 
also  makes  a  better  choice  of  the  words  to  be  included  in  the  quo- 
tations than  Buxtorf;  thus  under  Sfc^,  instead  of  is  nj^^  n»  rr^nb 
Num.  xvii.  17,  he  gives  in  preference  n8<  tr^nb  nt:?3  nt:)a. 

The  most  numerous  errors  in  Buxtorf  are  to  be  found  among 
the  references,  which,  as  we  have  before  observed,  are  given  by 
him  in  Hebrew  letters.  These  have  been  subjected  to  a  strict 
revision  by  Dr.  Fiirst,  who  has  greatly  lessened  the  liability  to  the 
future  recurrence  of  such  mistakes,  by  exchanging  the  Hebrew 
numerals  for  Arabic  figures.  We  will  not  detain  the  reader  with 
a  long  enumeration  of  mistakes  of  this  class ;  a  few,  with  their 
accompanying  corrections  by  Dr.  Fiirst,  will  suffice.  Thus  we 
have  under  a»  Lam.  iv.  28  for  v.  3.  Prov.  xv.  2  for  xv.  20  (this 
was  not  properly  corrected  by  Dr.  Fiirst,  who,  not  observing  that 
a  =  2  had  been  erroneously  put  for  5  ==  20,  omitted  the  passage 
altogether) ;  under  n^b  Jer.  xxxi.  8  for  xxxi.  9.  Ezek.  xliv. 
26  lor  xliv.  25;  under  13-1^6%  Num.  xxvi.  27  for  xxvi.  3;  Is. 
hiv.  8  for  Ixiv.  7,  &c.  &c. 

Over  and  above  the  improvements  introduced  into  the  body  of 
the  work,  of  which  we  have  attempted  to  give  something  like  an 
adequate  idea,  the  following  additions  are  promised  by  the  author 
in  the  form  of  appendices  : 

1.  An  etymologico-alphabetical  index  of  all  the  words  in  the 
Old  Testament,  with  references  to  the  pages  of  the  Concordance 
where  they  are  to  be  found. 

2.  An  index  purely  alphabetical,  with  references  like  the  pre- 
ceding. 


FURST's  HEBREW  CONCORDANCE.  583 

3.  A  tabular  view  of  all  the  forms  of  nouns  systematically 
arranged  according  to  their  origin  and  formation. 

4.  AH  the  particles  in  alphabetical  order. 

5.  An  alphabetical  list  of  all  the  Aramaic,  Talmudic,  and 
modern  Hebrew  words  explained  in  the  lexicographical  part  of 
the  Concordance,  with  references  to  the  places  where  they  are 
introduced.  This  will  be  so  large  as  to  form  an  almost  complete 
Aramaic  and  Rabbinic  lexicon. 

6.  An  alphabetical  list  of  all  Hebrew  proper  names. 

7.  The  Hebrew  verbal  roots  alphabetically  arranged  in  a  tabu- 
lar form,  according  to  the  relations  shown  to  exist  between  them 
and  those  of  the  six  other  families  of  languages  belonging  to  the 
ancient  world. 

8.  A  complete  collection  of  the  fragments  of  the  Masora,  with 
an  introduction  containing  a  full  history  of  it,  and  with  notes  show- 
ing the  points  of  difference  between  the  Masora  and  the  received 
biblical  text. 

9.  A  chronological  table  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.* 
Combining  such  great  and  manifold  advantages,  the  Concord- 
ance of  Dr.  Fiirst  may  be  affirmed  with  the  greatest  truth  to  be 
superior  in  all  respects  to  every  other  that  has  hitherto  been  pub- 
lished, Buxtorfs  not  excepted.  The  only  fault  of  consequence 
that  we  have  detected,  is  a  certain  negligence  in  following  out  the 
minutiae  of  the  plan  laid  down.  The  different  forms  of  words  do 
not  invariably  succeed  each  other  in  the  order  generally  observed  : 
thus,  the  participle,  which  usually  precedes  the  future  tense,  is 
placed  after  it  in  the  Pi'hel  of  bin  and  sometimes  the  suffixes  are 
made  secondary  to  the  prefixes  in  regulating  the  subdivision  of  the 
forms,  which  is  contrary  to  the  general  practice.  The  books  of 
the  Bible  are  not  always  quoted  in  the  same  order,  and  in  some 
instances  they  are  even  mingled  together  in  a  promiscuous  mass, 
as  for  example  under  bij^  and  t«.  Such  slight  defects  as  these, 
however,  cannot  be  considered  as  materially  detracting  from  the 
extraordinary  merit  of  the  work.  On  the  contrary,  the  talents, 
learning,  and  industry  displayed  by  its  author,  with  the  splendid 
style  of  its  typographical  execution,  are  such  as  to  demand  the 
admiration  of  all  competent  judges,  and  do  honour  to  the  age  and 
country  in  which  it  is  produced. 

*This  noble  monument  of  German  Jewish  erudition  and  diligence,  was  completed 
in  the  year  1840,  and  forms  a  magnificent  folio  of  1428  pages,  exclusive  of  the  Preface. 
The  valuable  Appendices  it  contains  are  essentially  the  same  as  were  promised  in  the 
Prospectus,  from  which  the  list  in  the  text  was  taken. — Ed. 


w 


ESSAY    XXI. 

THE  HISTORICAL  STATEMENTS  OF  THE  KORAN.* 

PUBLISHED    IN    1832. 


The  Mohammedan  imposture  is,  in  some  respects,  the  most 
remarkable  of  all  false  religions.  The  specious  simplicity  of  its 
essential  doctrines,  and  its  perfect  freedom  from  idolatry,  dis- 
tinguish it  for  ever  from  the  gross  mythology  of  classical  and 
oriental  paganism.  But  besides  these  characteristics,  it  displays  a 
third,  more  interesting  still.  We  mean  the  peculiar  relation  which 
it  bears  to  Christianity.  Whether  it  happened  from  a  happy  acci- 
dent or  a  sagacious  policy,  we  think  it  clear  that  Islam  owes  a  vast 
proportion  of  its  vast  success,  to  the  fact  that  Mohammed  built 
upon  another  man's  foundation.  Assuming  the  correctness  of  the 
common  doctrine  that  the  impostor  was  a  brilliant  genius,  though 
a  worthless  libertine,  and  that  his  book  is  the  offspring,  not  of 
insane  stupidity,  but  of  consummate  artifice,  there  certainly  is 
ground  for  admiration  in  the  apparent  union  of  simplicity  and 
efficacy  in  the  whole  design.  The  single  idea  of  admitting  freely 
the  divine  legation  of  the  Hebrew  seers,  and  exhibiting  himself  as 
the  topstone  of  the  edifice,  the  Last  Great  Prophet,  and  the  Para- 
clete of  Christ,  has  certainly  the  aspect  of  a  master  stroke  of  policy. 
Besides  conciliating  multitudes  of  Jews  and  soi-disant  Christians, 
at  the  very  first,  this  circumstance  has  aided  the  imposture  not  a 
little  ever  since.  It  relieves  the  Moslem  doctors  from  the  dire  neces- 
sity of  waging  war  against  both  law  and  gospel.  Whatever  can  be 
cited  from  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  Scriptures,  without  disparaging 
Mohammed,  they  admit  as  readily  as  any  Jew  or  Christian.  What- 
ever, on  the  contrary,  is  hostile  to  his  doctrines  or  pretensions,  or 
at  all  at  variance  with  the  statements  of  the  Koran,  is  disposed  of, 
not  by  an  absolute  rejection  of  the  Bible,  but  by  a  resort  to  the  con- 
venieot  supposition  of  corruption  in  the  text.     It  is  not  the  policy 

•  The  citations  in  this  article  are  chiefly  in  the  words  of  Sale,  with  occasional 
departures  from  his  phraseology,  too  minute  to  need  specification.  Where  there  is 
more  than  a  verbal  difference,  the  reader  is  apprized  of  it. 


THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS   OF    THE    KORAN.  585 

of  Islam  to  array  itself  against  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  dis- 
pensations, as  an  original  and  independent  system  ;  but  to  assume 
the  same  position  in  relation  to  the  Gospel,  which  the  Gospel  seems 
to  hold  in  relation  to  the  Law — or,  in  other  words,  to  make  itself 
the  grand  denouement  of  that  grand  scheme,  of  which  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  were  only  the  preparatory  stages.  Indeed,  if 
we  were  fully  satisfied  that  the  Rasool  Allah*  had  any  plan 
at  all,  we  should  be  disposed  to  account  for  it  in  this  way.  He 
was  acquainted  with  three  forms  of  religion,  Judaism,  Christianity, 
and  Paganism.  Disgusted  with  the  last,  he  was  led,  we  may  sup- 
pose, to  make  some  inquiries  into  the  points  of  difference  between 
the  Jews  and  Christians.  This  he  could  not  do,  without  discover- 
ing their  singular  relation  to  each  other — the  Christians  acknow- 
ledging the  Scriptures  of  the  Jews,  but  adding  others  to  them,  and 
regarding  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Messiah — the  Jews  on  the  other  hand 
rejecting  the  New  Testament,  and  bitterly  denying  the  Messiahship 
of  Christ.  This  fact  might  very  readily  suggest  the  project  of  a 
new  dispensation — a  third  one  to  the  Christian,  and  a  second  to 
the  Jew.  The  impostor  would  thus  be  furnished  with  an  argu- 
ment ad  hominem  to  stop  the  mouths  of  both.  To  the  Jews  he 
could  say.  Did  not  Moses  tell  your  fathers  that  a  prophet  should 
rise  up  in  the  latter  days,  greater  than  all  before  him  ?  I  am  he. 
Do  you  doubt  it  ?  Here  is  a  revelation  just  received  from  Gabriel. 
Do  not  all  your  sacred  books  predict  the  coming  of  a  great  deli- 
verer, a  conqueror,  a  king  ?  I  am  he.  In  a  few  months  you  shall 
see  me  at  the  head  of  a  thousand  tribes  going  forth  to  the  con- 
quest of  the  world.  If  this  was  the  ground  really  taken  at  first, 
how  striking  must  have  been  the  seeming  confirmation  of  these 
bold  pretensions,  when  Mohammed  and  his  successors  had  in 
fact  subjected,  not  Arabia  only,  but  Greece,  Persia,  Syria,  and 
Egypt. 

To  the  objection  of  the  Christians,  that  the  line  of  prophets 
was  long  since  completed,  he  could  answer.  Did  not  Jesus  come 
to  abrogate  or  modify  the  law,  when  its  provisions  were  no  longer 
suited  to  the  state  of  things  ?  Even  so  come  1,  to  supersede  the 
Gospel — not  to  discredit,  but  to  render  it  unnecessary,  by  a  more 
extensive  and  authoritative  doctrine.  So  far  from  being  anti- 
christ (as  some  no  doubt  objected)  I  am  the  very  Comforter  whom 
Jesus  promised. 

That  such  sophistry  might  easily  have  undermined  the  faith 
of  renegadoes  and  half-pagan  Christians,  is  certainly  conceiva- 
ble. Whether  this  was  in  fact  the  course  adopted  in  the  infancy 
of  Islam,  will  admit  a  doubt.  Be  that  as  it  may,  it  is  certain 
that  the  impostor  considered  it  expedient  to  incorporate  the  lead- 
ing facts  of  sacred  history  into  his  revelation,  so  far  as  they  were 
known  to  him.     That  his  knowledge  of  the  subject  was  imper- 

*  The  Apostle  of  God.     We  are  not  aware  that  Mohammed  ever  called  himself  a 
prophet. 


586  THE    fflSTORICAL    STATEMENTS   OF    THE   KORAN. 

feet,  need  not  excite  our  wonder.  The  sources  which  probably 
supplied  his  information,  could  scarcely  be  expected  to  emit  a 
purer  stream  than  that  which  irrigates  the  pages  of  the  Perspicu- 
ous Book. 

Sale's  Koran  is  a  very  common  book,  and  has  passed  through  a 
surprising  number  of  editions,  considering  its  character.  The 
text  is,  however,  of  necessity  so  dull,  that  nobody  can  read  it 
patiently  for  fifteen  minutes,  without  taking  refuge  in  the  more 
amusing  matter  of  the  notes  and  preface.  Were  there  any  conti- 
nuity, connexion,  consistency,  or  unity  to  be  discovered  in  it,  this 
would  be  of  less  importance.  But  in  such  a  jumble  of  discordant 
elements,  it  is  hard  to  get  any  information  by  just  reading  on  in 
course.  Remote  parts  must  be  brought  together  and  arranged  in 
order  to  enucleate  the  mysteries  of  Islam  ;  a  task  which  most 
would  look  upon  as  vastly  disproportioned  to  the  value  of  the 
object.  And  yet  it  is  important  that  the  Koran  should  be  better 
understood.  It  is  daily  growing  more  important,  and  will  very 
soon  be  thought  imperatively  necessary.  Theological  students 
who  look  forward  to  the  missionary  service,  are  too  apt  to  under- 
rate one  class  of  difficulties,  while  perhaps  they  magnify  another. 
You  will  find  a  man  hesitating  whether  he  shall  run  the  risk  of 
being  bastinadoed,  or  of  dying  with  the  plague,  while  he  forgets 
that  if  he  had  a  perfect  security  against  infection  and  corporeal 
violence,  he  might  still  be  disappointed  and  defeated  in  his  whole 
design.  That  a  man  should  go  to  convert  the  Moslems  with  an 
impression  on  his  mind  that  they  are  fools  or  children,  is  not 
merely  proof  of  ignorance  on  his  part,  but  a  melancholy  omen  for 
the  cause  which  he  espouses.  It  would  be  well,  therefore,  if  at 
this  time,  when  the  Mohammedans  are  objects  of  so  much  atten- 
tion to  the  friends  of  missions,  a  little  preparatory  study  could  be 
spent  upon  the  Koran.  It  is  certainly  desirable  that  he  who  under- 
takes the  instruction  of  a  Mussulman,  should  know  what  the  false 
opinions  are  which  he  must  combat.  If  he  expects  to  find  the 
mind  of  his  catechumen  a  tabula  rasa  on  the  subject  of  religion, 
he  will  find  himself  most  grievously  at  fault.  Such  strength  of 
prejudice  has  rarely  been  exhibited,  as  that  which  is  the  product  of 
a  thorough  education  in  the  doctrines  of  Mohammed,  aggravated, 
as  it  must  be,  by  the  fixed  belief  of  fatalism.  No  less  erroneous, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  the  opinion,  that  the  Moslem's  creed  is  wholly 
false,  and  must  be  utterly  destroyed  before  the  truth  can  find 
admission.  There  are  two  questions,  therefore,  which  the  mis- 
sionary should  know  how  to  answer :  what  are  the  peculiar  dog- 
mas of  Mohammed's  system  ?  and  what  has  it  in  common  with  the 
true  religion  ?  It  ought  to 'be  considered  as  a  great  advantage,  that 
the  facts  of  sacred  history  are  not  wholly  unknown  to  the  Moham- 
medans. For  though  they  may  consider  our  intelligence  as  bor- 
rowed from  their  Book,  it  is,  nevertheless,  something  tO  be  able  to 
appeal  to  striking  facts,  by  way  of  illustration,  confirmation,  or 
induction.     This  might,  as  it  were,  present  a  vulnerable  point, 


THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF   THE   KORAN.  587 

when  all  the  rest  is  shielded  in  impenetrable  prejudice.  A  begin- 
ning might  be  made  by  a  judicious  use  of  facts  which  they  believe 
as  well  as  we,  from  which  occasion  might  be  taken  to  correct  the 
errors  of  Mohammed's  narrative,  and  eventually  to  demonstrate 
and  explain  important  truths. 

What  are  these  facts,  then  ?  or,  in  other  words,  how  large  a 
portion  of  the  sacred  history  has  been  wrought  into  the  Kdran, 
and  thereby  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  cavil  on  the  part  of  all 
true  Moslemin  ? 

There  is  but  one  passage  in  the  Koran,  we  believe,  where  a 
connected  account  is  given  of  the  creation  of  the  world,  though 
it  is  frequently  mentioned  incidentally  as  God's  immediate  and 
almighty  act.  The  passage  alluded  to  occurs  in  the  forty-first 
chapter,  and  is  very  brief.  The  amount  of  it  is,  that  God  made 
the  universe  in  six  days,  two  of  which  were  employed  upon  the 
earth,  two  more  upon  its  products,  and  the  remaining  two  upon 
the  heaven.  The  latter,  we  are  told,  were  made  of  smoke,  into 
which  it  is  again  to  be  resolved  hereafter.*  This  element  was 
moulded  into  seven  distinct  heavens,  each  having  its  own  office. 
In  the  lowest  of  the  seven  the  great  lights  were  placed. 

In  glancing  at  this  passage,  we  have  had  occasion  to  observe 
Sale's  assiduity  in  striving  to  impart  coherence  and  significancy  to 
his  author's  text — not  by  false  or  loose  translation,  nor  by  sheer 
interpolation,  but  by  adding  something  to  fill  up  the  yawning 
chasms  of  the  porous  and  Perspicuous  Book.  In  a  word,  he  makes 
Mohammed  say  in  English,  not  what  he  does,  but  what  he  should 
have  said  in  Arabic ;  a  harmless  artifice,  so  far  as  substance  is 
concerned,  but  disingenuous,  so  far  as  it  conveys  too  high  a  notion 
of  the  psuedo-prophet's  merits.  For  example,  after  stating  the 
creation  of  the  earth,  Mohammed  says,  he  blessed  it,  and  provided 
therein  its  food,  or  their  food  (for  the  words  admit  of  either  sense). 
What  says  Sale  ?  "  He  blessed  it  and  provided  therein  the  food 
of  the  creatures  designed  to  be  the  inhabitants  thereof"  To  the 
last  eight  words  there  is  nothing  corresponding  in  the  Arabic. 

One  thing  more  ia  this  account  of  the  creation  may  deserve  our 
notice,  "  He  said  to  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  come  either  obedi- 
ently or  against  your  will ;  they  answered,  we  come  obedient  to 
thy  will."  This  was  obviously  intended  as  a  match  for  that  inimi- 
table sentence,  "  God  said,  Let  there  be  light,  and  light  was."  One 
can  hardly  help  smiling  at  the  Irish  sublimity  of  poor  Mohammed's 
master-piece,  the  alternative  proposed  to  two  nonentities,  and  their 
sagacious  choice.  It  is  but  just,  however,  to  admit,  that  the 
language  may  be  considered  as  addressed  to  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  after  they  were  created,  but  before  they  were  arranged  and 
beautified. 

The  Genii,  we  are  told  in  the  chapter  of  Al  Hejr,t  were  made 
of  subtle  fire,  as  Sale  translates  it.     The  original  words  are  nar 

*  See  the  chapter  entitled  Smoke,    Sale,  vol.  ii.,  c.  41.    Lond.  1801.  f  c-  3cv. 


588  THE    mSTORICAL    STATEMENTS   OF   THE    KORAN. 

temum,*  the  latter  term  properly  denoting  the  hot  wind  of  the 
desert  called  simoom  by  travellers.  There  is  something  poetical 
in  this  idea,  which  would,  no  doubt,  strike  the  fervid  fancy  of  a 
Bedouin  with  mighty  force.  The  account  of  the  creation  and  fall 
of  man  is  scattered  piecemeal  through  the  Koran.  The  narrative 
is  given,  more  or  less  completely,  in  the  second,  seventh,  eighth, 
fifteenth,  seventeenth,  and  eighteenth  chapters.  By  putting 
together  the  disjuncta  membra,  we  make  out  this  story.  After 
the  earth  and  angels  were  created,  God  announced  to  the  latter 
his  intention  to  create  a  khalif  or  vicegerent  upon  earth.  The 
angels  are  represented  as  remonstrating,  and  saying,  "  Wilt  thou 
place  there  one  who  will  do  mischief  and  shed  blood,  whereas  we 
celebrate  thy  praise  and  glorify  thee  ? "  What  suggested  their 
forebodings  is  not  mentioned.  The  only  reply  was,  "  I  know  that 
which  ye  know  not."  f  Agreeably  to  this  annunciation,  a  body 
was  formed  of  black  mud  and  dried  clay,  into  which  God  breathed 
a  spiritj  Adam,  thus  produced,  was  taught  by  revelation  the 
names  of  all  the  animals,  which  were  then  presented  to  the  angels 
with  these  words,  "  Declare  the  names  of  these,  if  ye  are  upright !" 
They  said,  "  God  forbid  !  we  have  no  other  knowledge  than  that 
which  thou  hast  given  us  :  thou  art  the  Knowing  and  the  Wise  ! " 
He  said,  "Adam,  tell  them  the  names  of  these!"  When  Adam 
had  told  their  names,  God  said,  *'  Did  I  not  tell  you  that  I  knew 
the  mysteries  of  heaven  and  earth  ?  "§  The  angels  were  then 
required  to  worship  Adam.  All  did  so  except  Iblis,  who,  Moham- 
med says,  "  was  of  the  Genii,  and  resisted  the  commandment  of 
his  Lord."||  From  this  it  appears  that  the  Jinn  or  Genii  were 
included  under  the  term  Angels  or  Malayic.  Whether  they  were 
before  this  evil  spirits,  we  are  left  to  guess.  The  prophet's  notions 
seem  to  have  been  exceedmgly  confused. 

In  another  place  we  find  the  following  dialogue  between  the 
Almighty  and  the  devil. 

AUah.  "  O  Iblis,  what  hindereth  thee  from  worshipping  that  which 
I  have  created  with  my  hands  ?  Art  thou  elated  with  vain  pride, 
or  art  thou  really  one  of  exalted  merit  ?  " 

Ihlis.  "  I  am  better  than  he  ;  thou  hast  created  me  of  fire,  and 
hast  created  him  of  clay." 

Allah.  "  Get  thee  hence,  therefore,  for  thou  shalt  be  driven  away 
from  mercy,  and  my  curse  shall  be  upon  thee  till  the  day  of  judg- 
ment." 

Ihlis,  **  Oh  Lord,  respite  me  till  the  day  of  resurrection." 

Allah,  **  Verily  thou  shalt  be  one  of  the  respited." 

Iblis.  "  By  thy  might  I  swear,  that  I  will  surely  seduce  them  all, 
except  thy  servants  who  shall  be  peculiarly  chosen  from  among 

Allah,  "  It  is  a  just  sentence  :  I  speak  the  truth :  I  will  fill  hell 
with  thee,  and  with  such  as  follow  thee."l 

/'^•A^:.  +  »i'  30-  X  XV.,  25.  28. 

§  II.,  30,  kc.  II  xviii.,  50.  IT  xxxviii.,  76-86. 


THE   HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF   THE    KORAN.  589 

The  same  account,  substantially,  is  given  in  the  seventh  and 
fifteenth  chapters.  In  one  of  these  passages,  Iblis  is  made  to  say, 
"  Because  thou  hast  seduced  or  deceived  me  (Sale  says  depraved), 
I  will  lie  in  wait  for  men  in  thy  strait  way  ;  and  I  will  come  upon 
them  from  before  and  from  behind,  and  fr.  m  their  right-hand  and 
from  their  left,  and  thou  shalt  not  find  the  greater  part  of  them 
thankful."* 

Such  is  the  account  of  the  apostasy  of  Iblis.  Its  immediate 
consequence  was  the  fall  of  man,  which  is  related  thus :  "  God 
said  to  Iblis,  Get  thee  hence,  despised  and  driven  away  !  Verily, 
whoever,  shall  follow  thee,  I  will  surely  fill  hell  with  you  all. 
But  as  for  thee,  O  Adam,  dwell  thou  and  thy  wife  in  the  garden, 
and  eat  of  it  wherever  ye  will,  but  approach  not  this  tree,  lest  ye  be 
of  the  wicked.  And  Satan  (i.  e.  the  adversary,  as  in  Hebrew) 
whispered  to  them  that  he  would  reveal  their  nakedness  which  was 
concealed  from  them.  And  he  said,  your  Lord  has  not  excluded 
you  from  this  tree,  except  for  fear  that  you  should  become 
angels  or  immortal.  And  he  sware  to  them,  I  am  one  of  those 
who  give  good  counsel.  And  he  caused  them  to  fall  by  his  deceit. 
And  when  they  had  tasted  of  the  tree,  their  nakedness  appeared  to 
them,  and  they  began  to  join  the  leaves  of  the  garden  upon  them- 
selves. And  their  Lord  called  to  them  saying,  Did  I  not  forbid 
you  this  tree,  and  tell  you  that  Satan  was  your  avowed  enemy  ? 
They  said.  Our  Lord,  we  have  sinned  against  our  own  souls,  and 
unless  thou  forgive  us  and  have  mercy  upon  us,  we  shall  certainly 
be  of  those  who  perish."f  "  And  Adam  learned  words  (of  prayer. 
Sale  adds)  from  his  Lord,  and  he  turned  unto  him,  for  lie  is  easy 
to  be  turned  and  merciful.  And  God  said,  Go  down,  the  one  of 
you  an  enemy  to  the  other,  and  there  shall  be  a  dwelling  place  for 
you  on  earth  and  provision  for  a  season."J  "  Therein  shall  ye 
live  and  therein  shall  ye  die,  and  therefrom  shall  ye  be  taken  forth 
(Sale  adds,  a^  Me  re5Mrrec<io7i)."§  "  There  shall  come  to  you  a 
direction  from  me,  and  as  many  as  obey  that  direction  shall  be 
free  from  fear  and  grief;  but  as  many  as  disbelieve  and  charge 
our  signs  with  falsehood,  shall  be  companions  of  hell-fire.  Therein 
shall  they  dwell  for  ever."|| 

The  account  of  Cain  and  Abel  is  very  brief.  Brief  as  it  is, 
however,  there  was  room  for  one  sheer  fabrication,  borrowed 
from  the  Rabbins.  "  Tell  them  the  story  of  the  two  sons  of  Adam 
truly.  When  they  oflered  an  offering,  and  it  was  accepted  from 
one  of  them  and  not  from  the  other,  he  said  (Cain  said  to  his  bro- 
ther, quoth  Sale),  I  will  kill  thee.  He  said  (Abel  said,  lA.).  God 
accepteth  gifts  fi'om  those  who  fear  him.  If  thou  stretch  forth  thy 
hand  against  me  to  slay  me,  I  will  not  stretch  forth  my  hand 
against  thee  to  slay  thee,  for  I  fear  God  the  Lord  of  the  Uni- 
verse.    I  am  willing  that  thou  shouldst  bear  my  iniquity  and  thine 

*  vii.,  16,  17.  t  vii.,  18-23.  %  »•.  36,  37. 

§  vii.,  26.  jl  ii.,  38. 


590  THE   HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS   OF    THE   KORAN. 

own  iniquity,  and  thou  shouldst  become  one  of  the  companions  of 
hell-fire ;  for  that  is  the  reward  of  the  unrighteous.  And  his  soul 
permitted  him  to  slay  his  brother,  and  he  slew  him,  and  become 
one  of  those  who  perish.  And  God  sent  a  raven  which  scratched 
the  earth,  to  teach  him  how  he  should  hide  his  brother's  naked- 
ness. Then  he  said,  woe  is  me  !  am  I  unable  to  be  like  this  raven 
that  I  may  hide  my  brother's  nakedness  ?  And  he  became  one  of 
the  penitent.  On  this  account,  we  prescribed  it  to  the  children  of 
Israel,  that  whoever  slays  a  soul  without  a  soul  (i.  e.,  probably, 
without  having  slain  a  soul)  or  without  having  acted  wickedly  in 
the  earth,  shall  be  as  if  he  had  slain  all  mankind,  and  he  who  saveth 
a  soul  alive,  shall  be  as  if  he  had  saved  the  lives  of  all  mankind."* 
This  last  fine  sentiment  is  finely  countenanced  by  the  repeated 
order  to  exterminate  the  infidels,  and  the  many  promises  of  ever- 
lasting happiness  to  those  who  die  upon  the  field  of  battle. 

It  will  be  observed,  that  in  the  narrative  just  given,  the  names  of 
Adam's  sons  do  not  occur  at  all,  except  in  Sale's  translation.  We 
have  no  recollection  of  their  being  mentioned  elsewhere.  Noah, 
the  Koran  says,  was  sent  to  warn  his  contemporaries,  and  remained 
among  them  "  a  thousand  years  save  fifty."t  The  only  persons  who 
submitted  to  his  guidance  were  obscure  and  abject ;  the  nobles  and 
the  wealthy  stood  aloof.  At  length  it  was  revealed  to  Noah  that  all 
had  believed  who  would  believe,  and  he  was  directed  to  construct  a 
vessel.  While  engaged  upon  this  task  he  was  treated  with  general 
derision  and  contempt.  At  last  the  appointed  time  arrived,  "  and 
the  oven  poured  forth  boiling  water." J  The  narrative  then  pro- 
ceeds as  follows :  "  We  said  unto  Noah,  carry  into  the  ark  of 
every  kind  of  animal  one  pair,  and  thine  own  family  (excepting 
him  on  whom  sentence  had  already  passed),  and  those  who  believe. 
And  there  believed  not  with  him  except  a  few.  And  Noah 
said,  embark  upon  it  in  the  name  of  God,  while  it  floats  and 
while  it  is  at  rest.  Surely  my  Lord  is  merciful  and  gracious. 
And  it  floated  with  them  upon  waves  like  mountains ;  and  Noah 
called  to  his  son  who  was  separated  from  them,  Oh  my  son,  embark 
with  us,  and  be  not  with  the  unbelievers.  He  said,  1  will  ascend  a 
mountain  which  will  secure  me  from  the  water.  He  said,  there 
is  no  security  to-day  from  the  decree  of  God  except  for  him  on 
whom  he  shall  have  mercy.  And  a  wave  passed  between  them, 
and  he  was  one  of  the  drowned.  And  it  was  said,  oh  earth 
swallow  up  thy  water,  and  oh  heaven  withhold  !  And  the  water 
subsided,  and  the  decree  was  accomplished,  and  it  (the  ark)  rested 
on  Al  Judi ;  and  it  was  said,  away  with  the  ungodly  people  !  And 
Noah  called  upon  his  Lord  and  said,  oh  my  Lord,  my  son  is  one 
of  my  family,  and  thy  promise  is  true,  for  thou  art  the  most  just  of 
those  who  judge.  God  said,  Noah,  he  is  not  one  of  thy  family  ; 
this  is  not  a  righteous  work  (viz.,  his  intercession).  Ask  not  of 
me  that  of  which  thou  hast  no  knowledge,  I  admonish  thee  not  to 

•v..  29-34.  txxix.,14.  J  xi  ,  40. 


THE   HISTOEICAL    STATEMENTS    OF   THE   KORAN.  591 

be  one  of  the  ignorant."*  Noah  then  acknowledges  his  fault, 
leaves  the  ark,  and  receives  a  benediction.  At  the  close  of  the 
history  the  prophet  adds,  as  if  apprehensive  that  some  of  the  faith- 
ful might  have  been  beforehand  with  him,  "  This  is  a  secret  history 
which  we  reveal  unto  thee  ;  thou  didst  not  know  it,  neither  did  thy 
people  before  this."t 

With  respect  to  Abraham,J  there  are  many  statements  and  allu- 
sions in  the  Koran.  The  substance  of  his  history  is  this.  While 
yet  a  boy,  he  was  led  to  disbelieve  in  the  idolatrous  religion  of  his 
father  and  his  countrymen.  Having  secretly  renounced  the  wor- 
ship of  images,  he  was  in  doubt  to  what  object  he  should  pay  his 
adorations.  He  first  pitched  upon  the  sun  and  moon,  but  after- 
wards reflected  that  their  setting  every  day  rendered  them  unwor- 
thy of  divine  honours.  He  came  at  last  to  the  conclusion,  there- 
fore, that  he  would  worship  God  alone.§  Having  formed  this  reso- 
lution, he  remonstrated  with  his  father  on  the  folly  of  idolatry.  Ezer, 
however,  as  Mohammed  calls  him,  rebuked  his  son  severely  and 
threatened  hi«n  with  death.||  Even  this,  it  seems,  did  not  deter 
the  young  reformer  from  playing  a  bold  and  witty  trick  upon  his 
pagan  friends.  Absenting  himself  from  one  of  their  festivals,  "  he 
went  into  the  temple  where  the  idols  stood,  and  he  brake  them  all 
in  pieces  except  the  biggest  of  them,  that  they  might  lay  the  blame 
upon  that.  And  when  they  were  returned  and  saw  the  havoc 
which  had  been  made,  they  said,  who  hath  done  this  to  our  gods  ? 
He  is  certainly  an  impious  person.  And  certain  of  them  answered. 
We  heard  a  young  man  speak  reproachfully  of  them  :  he  is  named 
Abraham.  They  said,  bring  him  therefore  before  the  eyes  of  the 
people,  that  they  may  bear  witness  against  him.  And  when  he 
was  brought  before  the  assembly,  they  said  to  him,  hast  thou  done 
this  unto  our  gods,  oh  Abraham  ?  He  answered,  nay,  but  that 
biggest  one  of  them  hath  done  it ;  ask  them  if  they  can  speak. 
And  they  came  to  themselves,  and  said  one  to  the  other,  verily  ye 
are  the  impious  persons.  Afterwards  they  turned  down  upon  their 
heads  (i.  e.  relapsed)  and  said,  verily  thou  knowest  that  these  can- 
not speak.  Abraham  said,  do  ye  therefore  worship  besides  (or 
instead  of)  God  that  which  cannot  profit  you  at  all,  neither  can  it 
hurt  you  !  Fie  on  you  and  upon  that  which  ye  worship  besides 
God  !  Do  ye  not  understand  ?  They  said.  Burn  him  and  avennre 
your  Gods.  (And  when  Abraham  was  cast  into  the  burning  pile)1[ 
we  said,  oh  fire  be  thou  cold,  and  a  preservation  unto  Abraham. 
And  they  sought  to  lay  a  plot  against  him,  but  we  caused  them  to 
be  the  sufferers."**  After  this  miraculous  preservation,  he  boldly 
inveighed  against  idolatry  in  public,  but  without  effect.  Lot 
alone  believed,  in  company  with  whom  Abraham  forsook  his 
native  country  **to  go  to  the  place  which  the  Lord  had  com- 
manded him."tt 

♦xi.,  40-46.  t  3ci.»  49.  J  Ibrahim.  §vi.,  74-79. 

II  xix.,  46,  IT  These  nine  words  are  interpolated  by  Sale. 

••  xxi.,  58-69.     (Sale,  vol.  ii.,  p.  158.    Lond.,  1808.)  ft  xxix.,  26»  Hs 


502  THE  HISTORICAL   STATEMENTS   OF   THE   KORAN. 

The  reader  will  have  observed,  amidst  the  fiction  and  obscurity 
of  these  details,  not  a  few  glimpses  of  the  truth  from  which  they 
were  derived.  We  find  the  case  the  same  as  we  pursue  the  nar- 
rative. The  very  next  step  brings  us  to  a  lamentable  travesty  of 
Genesis  xv.,  7-12.  "  Abraham  said.  Lord  show  me  how  thou 
wilt  raise  the  dead.  Dost  thou  not  believe  ?  He  said,  yes,  but 
that  mv  mind  may  be  at  ease.  He  said,  take  then  four  birds,  and 
divide  them,  and  place  a  piece  on  every  mountain.  Then  call 
them  and  they  will  come  to  thee  in  haste  ;  and  know  that  God  is 
mighty  and  merciful."* 

The  visit  of  the  angels  is  related  with  laudable  accuracy  as  to 
some  particulars,  and  woful  want  of  it  in  others.  The  object  of 
their  coming  and  the  mode  of  their  reception,  are  correctly  stated. 
But  the  laughter  of  Sarah  is  made  to  precede  the  promise  of  a  son.f 
This  slight  anachronism  has  occasioned  an  incredible  deal  of  pains 
to  the  Mohammedan  commentators,  who,  we  need  not  say,  are 
very  numerous,  voluminous,  minute,  and  silly.  They  have  at- 
tempted in  vain  to  account  for  Sarah's  laughter,  and  the  ground  of 
its  connexion  with  the  promise  which  ensued.  The  son  thus  pro- 
mised is  correctly  stated  to  have  been  called  Isaac  ;J  and  yet  that 
patriarch  is  treated,  both  by  the  Koran  and  the  commentators,  as 
a  very  obscure  and  unimportant  personage.  He  is  only  men- 
tioned incidentally,  and  then  but  briefly.  Ishmael§  is  constantly 
brought  forward  as  the  leading  character.     The  reason  of  this  is 

Jlain.  It  was  intended  to  exhibit  his  descendants,  instead  of  the 
ews,  as  the  chosen  people.  The  only  wonder  is,  that  he  was  not 
made  the  child  of  promise.  We  mention  it  as  an  instance  of  the 
clumsy  manner  in  which  Mohammed  put  his  stuff*  together.|| 

The  account  of  the  incidents  immediately  preceding  the  awful 
overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  so  far  as  it  goes,  is  tolerably 
accurate.  Abraham's  intercession,  and  the  outrageous  conduct  of 
the  wretched  Sodomites,  are  stated  briefly  but  distinctly.  On 
reaclyng  the  catastrophe,  the  reader  is  surprised  to  learn  that  it 
was  effected  by  a  storm  of  brickbats  I  Sale  gives  it  thus :  "  And 
when  our  command  came,  we  turned  those  cities  upside  down, 
and  we  rained  upon  them  stones  of  baked  clay,  one  following 
another."1f 

The  facts  in  relation  to  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  are  stated  in  the 
thirty-seventh  chapter  of  the  Koran,  without  any  material  depart- 
ure from  the  truth,  but  also  without  the  touching  simplicity  and 
circumstantiality  of  the  original.  The  last  passage  which  we  shall 
advert  to,  in  the  history  of  Abraham  as  scattered  through  the 
Koran,  is  purely  Koranic,  and  was  obviously  designed  to  trace  the" 
imposture  of  the  camel-driver  up  to  the  father  of  the  faithful. 
We  give  it  in  the  words  of  Sale,  inserting  brackets  to  denote  inter- 
polations.    "  God  said,  verily   I  will   constitute  thee  a  model  of 

•ii.,259.  txi.,71.  J  Is-hak.  §  Ismail. 

II  It  may  have  been  because  the  etymology  of  Isaac's  name  would  suggest  the  same 
idea  to  an  Arab  as  a  Jew,  viz.,  laughter.  IT  xi.,  82. 


THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF   THE   KORAN.  593 

religion*  unto  mankind  :  he  answered,  and  also  of  my  posterity  ? 
God  said,  my  covenant  doth  not  comprehend  the  ungodly.  And 
we  appointed  the  [holy]  house  [of  Mekka]  to  be  a  place  of  resort 
for  mankind,  and  a  place  of  security ;  and  said,  take  the  station  of 
Abraham  for  a  place  of  prayer  ;  and  we  covenanted  with  Ismael 
and  Abraham,  that  they  should  cleanse  my  house  for  those  who 
should  compass  it  and  those  who  should  be  devoutly  assiduous 
there,  and  those  who  should  bow  down  and  worship.  And  Abra- 
ham and  Ismael  raised  the  foundations  of  the  house,  saying.  Lord, 
accept  it  from  us,  for  thou  art  he  who  heareth  and  who  knoweth. 
Lord,  make  us  all  resigned  unto  thee,  and  of  our  posterity  a  people 
resigned  unto  thee,  and  show  us  our  holy  ceremonies,  and  be  turned 
unto  us,  for  thou  art  easy  to  be  reconciled  and  merciful.  Lord, 
send  them  likewise  an  Apostle  from  among  them,  who  may 
declare  thy  signs  unto  them,  and  teach  them  the  book  [of  the 
Koran],  and  wisdom,  and  purify  them  ;  for  thou  art  mighty  and 
wise.  Who  will  be  averse  to  the  religion  of  Abraham,  but  he 
whose  mind  is  infatuated  ?*'t  This  last  triumphant  interrogatory 
harmonizes  well  with  the  assertion  elsewhere  made,  that  "  Abra- 
ham was  neither  a  Jew  nor  a  Christian,  but  a  Hanif,  or  orthodox 
believer.J 

In  the  passage  just  quoted,  we  find  the  religion  of  Mohammed 
identified  with  the  millah  Ibrahim  or  religion  of  Abraham.  We 
also  find  the  origin  of  the  distinctive  name  of  the  imposture.  The 
Arabic  word  which  Sale  translates  resigned^  is  Moslimin,.a  partici- 
ple. The  verb  Aslama  means  to  yield  one's  self  up  unreservedly. 
It  is  used  to  denote  entire  resignation  to  God's  will,  and  devotion 
to  his  service.  The  participle  Moslim  (plural  moslimun,  moslimin) 
is  the  proper  equivalent  to  our  word  Mohammedan,  which  they 
seldom  employ,  and  signifies  one  resigned  and  devoted.  The 
infinitive  of  the  same  verb  is  Islam,  resignation  and  devotion,  the 
term  used  by  Moslems  to  denote  their  own  religion,  and  one 
which  might  well  supersede  the  uncouth  European  form,  Moham- 
medanism. 

Dr.  Scott  says,  somewhere  in  his  correspondence,  that  the  history 
of  Joseph  is  worse  murdered  in  the  Koran,  than  his  brothers  ever 
wished  to  murder  him.  Comparatively  speaking,  this  is  quite  too 
harsh  a  judgment.  That  narrative,  compared  with  others  which 
Mohammed  gives  us,  is  a  model  of  coherence  and  correctness. 
There  are  fewer  anachronisms  and  interpolations  here,  than  in 
almost  any  other  of  his  attempts  at  history.  Joseph's  dream  con- 
cerning the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  and  its  effect  upon  his  brethren, 
are  correctly  stated.  In  order  to  gratify  their  spite,  they  are 
represented  as  requesting  Jacob  to  send  Joseph  to  the  pastures 
with  them.  The  proposal  to  kill  him,  and  Reuben's  interference, 
are  distinctly  mentioned,  but  without  the  name  of  Reuben.  They 
are  said,  moreover,  to  have  left  him  in  the  well,  and  carried  the 

•  (Arab.)  an  Imam.  t  "•>  124-130.  t  "»•»  67. 

38 


594  THE    HISTORICAX    STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN. 

report  of  his  death  to  Jacob.     "  And  certain  travellers  came,  and 
sent  one  to  draw  water  for  them  ;  and  he  let  down  his  bucket, 
and  said,  good  news  !  this  is  a  youth  !     And  they  concealed  him, 
that  they  might  sell  him  as  a  piece  of  merchandise."  *     He  is  car- 
ried to  Egypt  and  sold.     The  wickedness  of  his  mistress,  and  his 
constancy,  are  related  with  substantial  accuracy  ;  but  by  an  awk- 
ward blunder,  Joseph  is  sent  to  prison  after  being  pronounced 
innocent.     The  dreams  of  the  baker  and  butler,  Joseph's  interpre- 
tation of  them,  Pharaoh's  dream,  and  Joseph's  liberation  and  pro- 
motion, are  given,  without  much  deviation  from  the  truth.     He  is 
made,  however,  to  propose  his  own  elevation  to  the  chair  of  state.f 
The  famine  in  Canaan,  the  journey  of  Jacob's  sons  to  Egypt, 
Simeon's  detention,  the  restoration  of  the  money,  Benjamin's  visit, 
the  recognition  of  Joseph,  and  Jacob's  emigration,  are  all  mention- 
ed.    Some  embellishments  are  introduced,  no  doubt.     Jacob  is 
blinded  by  weeping  for  the  loss  of  Joseph,  and  restored  to  sight 
by  the  application  of  Joseph's  cinder  garment.     The  following 
nonsense  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  venerable  patriarch,  on  send- 
ing his  sons  a  second  time  to  Egypt.     "  My  sons,  enter  not  into 
the  city  by  one  and  the  same  gate  ;  but  enter  by  different  gates. 
But  this  precaution  will  be  of  no  advantage  unto  you  against  the 
decree  of  God,  for  judgment  belongeth  to  him  alone."     By  a  ridi- 
culous anachronism,  Joseph  is  made  to  reveal  himself  to  Benjamin, 
before  the  discovery  of  the  cup ;  and  thus  the  stratagem  is  left 
without  an  object.     Joseph's  messengers,  despatched  to  bring  his 
brethren  back,  offer  a  reward  of  a  load  of  corn  to  the  man  who 
should  produce  the  cup.     His  brethren  are  made  to  say,  "  If  Ben- 
jamin be  guilty  of  theft,  his  brother  Joseph  hath  been  guilty  of 
theft  heretofore ! " 

Still,  as  we  said  before,  the  narrative,  compared  with  others  in 
the  book,  may  be  said  to  be  consistent,  continuous,  and  even  accu- 
rate. At  the  same  time,  it  should  be  mentioned  as  an  interesting 
fact,  that  from  beginning  to  end  there  is  no  approach  to  pathos, 
nor  the  slightest  indication  of  that  masterly  acquaintance  with  the 
human  heart,  which  shines  in  the  inimitable  and  divine  original. 
And  we  venture  to  say,  that  no  one,  after  reading  the  Koran  in  its 
native  dress,  however  much  he  may  be  pleased  with  many  rhyth- 
mical and  sonorous  passages,  will  be  able  to  recall  one  solitary 
sentence  which  evinces  either  tenderness  or  purity  of  feeling.  Let 
those  who  would  see  this  difference  between  a  genuine  and  a  spuri- 
ous revelation  exhibited  in  very  striking  contrast,  read  the  twelfth 
chapter  of  Sale's  Koran  in  connexion  with  the  history  of  Joseph 
in  the  book  of  Genesis.  The  comparison  is  fair ;  for  both  are 
literal  translations  from  cognate  dialects.  To  take  a  single  stroke 
from  either  picture  as  a  specimen,  we  give  the  account  of  Joseph's 
making  himself  known,  as  recorded  by  Moses  and  Mohammed. 
**  Then  Joseph  could  not  refrain  himself  before  all  them  that  stood 

•»»•.«•  txii.»53. 


THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN.  595 

by  him  ;  and  he  cried,  Cause  every  man  to  go  out  from  me.  And 
there  stood  no  man  with  him  while  he  made  himself  known  unto 
his  brethren.  And  he  wept  aloud.  And  Joseph  said  unto  his  breth- 
ren, I  am  Joseph.  Doth  my  father  yet  live?  And  his  brethren 
could  not  answer  him ;  for  they  were  troubled  at  his  presence. 
And  Joseph  said  unto  his  brethren.  Come  near  to  me,  I  pray  you ; 
and  they  came  near.  And  he  said,  I  am  Joseph  your  brother, 
whom  ye  sold  into  Egypt.  Now,  therefore,  be  not  grieved  nor 
angry  with  yourselves,  &c.  &c.  And  he  fell  upon  his  brother 
Benjamin's  neck  and  wept."  (Gen.  xlv.)  "  Wherefore  Joseph's 
brethren  returned  into  Egypt ;  and  when  they  came  into  his 
presence  they  said.  Noble  lord,  the  famine  is  felt  by  us  and 
our  family,  and  we  are  come  with  a  small  sum  of  money  :  yet  give 
unto  us  full  measure,  and  bestow  corn  upon  us  as  alms  ;  for  God 
rewardeth  the  alms-givers.  Joseph  said  unto  them.  Do  ye  know 
what  ye  did  unto  Joseph  and  his  brother,  when  ye  were  ignorant 
of  the  consequence  thereof?  They  answered,  Art  thou  Joseph? 
He  replied,  1  am  Joseph  and  this  is  my  brother.  Now  hath  God 
been  gracious  unto  us.  They  said,  Now  hath  God  chosen  thee 
above  us  ;  and  we  have  surely  been  sinners.  Joseph  said.  Let  there 
be  no  reproach  cast  on  you  this  day.  God  forgiveth  you  ;  for  he 
is  the  most  merciful  of  those  who  show  mercy."  (Kor.  xii.,  Sale, 
vol.  ii.,  p.  50.  Lond.  1801.) 

The  twenty-eighth  chapter  of  the  Koran,  called  The  Story, 
opens  with  these  words ;  "  In  the  name  of  God  most  merciful, 
T.  S.  M.  These  are  the  signs  of  the  Perspicuous  Book.  We 
dictate  unto  thee  some  of  the  history  of  Moses*  and  Pharaohf  with 
truth  for  those  who  believe."  And  accordingly  we  have  a  very 
copious  account  of  the  great  lawgiver,  both  in  this  same  chapter 
and  in  several  others.  In  reading  it  over  we  are  struck  with  the 
illustration  which  it  yields  of  the  way  in  which  these  shreds  of 
sacred  history  were  gathered  by  the  pseudapostle.  We  can  per- 
ceive throughout  an  effort  to  retain  as  much  as  possible  of  what  he 
had  been  told,  without  regard  to  the  causes  and  connexions  of  events. 
Facts,  which  are  stated  in  the  Scriptures  as  the  natural  results  of 
antecedent  facts,  stand  here  detached  and  unaccounted  for.  This 
would  indeed  be  in  Mohammed's  favour,  if  he  were  alluding  to 
events  already  known,  as  such — just  as  the  allusions  in  the  Psalms 
and  Prophets  prove  that  the  Jews  were  acquainted  with  the  Pen- 
tateuch. But  such  is  not  the  case.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  he  pro- 
fesses to  reveal  what  was  before  unknown,  and  by  so  doing  proves 
himself  a  Har.  Our  object  is,  to  show  how  much  of  the  Scripture 
history  is  borrowed,  and  how  much  new  matter  is  interpolated. 
He  mentions  Pharaoh's  tyranny,  and  speaks  of  it  as  general,  though 
most  excessive  towards  the  Hebrews.  He  mentions  the  sanguinary 
edict  with  respect  to  Jewish  children,  and  the  signal  deliverance 
of  Moses  from  the  water,  his   adoption  by  Pharaoh's  wife  (not 

•  Musa.  t  Firaun. 


596  THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN. 

daughter),  and  his  strange  restoration  to  his  mother  as  a  nurse ; 
his  killing  the  Egyptian,  and  his  flight  to  Midian,*  his  behaviour 
at  the  well,  and  his  introduction  to  the  family  of  Jethro,  who  is 
here  called  Shoaib.  We  are  then  told,  that  he  served  eight  years 
for  Shoaib's  daughter,  a  circumstance  borrowed  from  the  history 
of  Jacob,  who  is  scarcely  ever  mentioned  except  in  the  history  of 
Joseph,  and  in  a  few  other  cases  where  his  name  is  joined  with 
those  of  Abraham  and  Isaac.  Having  fulfilled  the  term  of  his 
engagement,  he  set  out  for  Egypt  with  his  family.  While  on  his 
journey,  he  perceived  a  fire  upon  the  side  of  Mount  Sinai  which 
he  turned  aside  to,  with  a  view  to  warm  himself  and  ascertain  the 
road-t  On  his  approach,  however,  a  voice  commanded  him  to  put 
off  his  shoes  because  he  was  in  the  holy  valley  Towa.  The  two 
miracles  are  then  recorded,  without  any  reason  for  them  being 
given.  That  of  the  serpent  is  correctly  stated,  but  the  other  is 
ridiculously  misrepresented.  The  account  given  by  Moses  him- 
self J  is  that  he  thrust  his  hand  into  his  bosom  and  drew  it  out 
leprous  as  snow  (mHzoraath  casshaleg).  Whether  the  former  of 
these  words  was  wanting  in  the  copy  of  the  law  which  more  or 
less  remotely  furnished  Mohammed  with  his  information,  or 
whether  his  Jewish  teacher  did  not  know  its  meaning,  or  whether 
he  himself  remembered  only  half  of  what  he  heard, — these  ques- 
tions must  for  ever  keep  their  place  among  the  mysteries  of  which 
he  talks  so  much.  Certain  it  is,  however,  that  he  says  not  a  word 
of  leprosy,  and  makes  the  miracle  consist  in  his  drawing  out  his 
hand  white  and  uninjured  /§  To  make  the  aspect  of  the  thing  a 
little  marvellous,  the  Moslem  commentators  tell  us  that  Moses  was 
very  swarthy,  and  that  his  hand  underwent  a  miraculous  change 
of  complexion  !  How  much  perplexity  may  be  occasioned  by  the 
misconception  or  omission  of  a  word  !  And  oh,  how  hard,  how 
impossible  it  is,  for  awkward  imposture  to  ape  the  consistent  sim- 
plicity of  truth  ! 

The  fact  of  the  prophet's  hesitation  and  reluctance  to  obey  the 
Lord's  injunction,  is  here  mentioned;  but  the  grounds  of  it  are 
strangely  jumbled.  "Moses  said.  Oh  Lord,  I  have  slain  one  of 
them,  and  I  fear  they  will  put  me  to  death  ;  but  my  brother  Aaron|| 
is  of  a  more  eloquent  tongue  than  I ;  wherefore  send  him  with  me 
for  an  assistant,  that  he  may  gain  me  credit ;  for  I  fear  lest  they 
accuse  me  of  imposture."! 

Pharaoh  charges  them  with  a  design  to  dispossess  him  of  his 
land  by  magic,  and  challenges  them  to  a  competition  with  the 
sorcerers  of  Egypt.  Moses  accepts  the  challenge,  and  a  great 
feast-day  is  appointed  for  the  contest.**  The  people  assemble,  and 
the  magicians  come  prepared  with  cords  and  rods,  which  they 
make  by  their  enchantments  to  appear  like  serpents.  The  rod  of 
Moses  swallows  up  the  rest,  whereupon  the  magicians  publicly 

•  Madian.  f  xxriii.,  1-30.  J  Exodus  iv.,  6.  §  Koran  xx.,  22. 

II  Haron.  %  xxviii.,  34, 35.  **  xx.,  59. 


THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN.  597 

acknowledge  their  belief  in  the  God  of  Moses  and  Aaron.  Pha- 
raoh, enraged  with  this  defection,  threatens  them  with  the  severest 
punishment. 

In  this  part  of  the  narrative,  there  is  a  single  sentence  which  is 
itself  a  curiosity.  Pharaoh  said,  "  Oh  Haman,  burn  me  clay  unto 
bricks,  and  build  me  a  high  tower,  that  I  may  ascend  into  the 
God  of  Moses."*  Here  we  have  Haman  burning  bricks  in  Egypt, 
in  the  days  of  Moses,  for  the  purpose  of  building  the  tower  of 
Babel !  We  say  the  tower  of  Babel,  because  there  is  no  notice 
taken  elsewhere  in  the  Koran  of  that  striking  incident  in  sacred 
history,  and  because  the  motive  here  ascribed  to  Pharaoh  is  so 
near  akin  to  that  mentioned  in  Genesis.  Gross  as  the  anachro- 
nism seems  to  us,  however,  the  Moslems  steadfastly  maintain  that 
Haman  was  prime  minister  to  Pharaoh. 

The  Egyptians,  refusing  to  believe  on  Moses,  were  punished  by 
a  flood,  locusts,  lice,  frogs,  and  blood,  distinct  miracles.f  These 
being  removed  by  the  intercession  of  Moses,  they  broke  their  pro- 
mise and  refused  obedience.J  Moses  was  then  directed  to  with- 
draw with  the  Israelites  at  night.  Pharaoh  pursued  them.  The 
sea  was  divided  into  twelve  parts,  separated  by  as  many  paths, 
through  which  the  Hebrews  passed,  while  the  Egyptians  were  all 
drowned. §  The  Israelites,  proceeding  on  their  journey,  came 
among  a  people  who  worshipped  idols,  whereupon  they  requested 
Moses  to  give  them  idols  also.  This  he  refused  ;  and  in  obedience 
to  the  divine  command  fasted  forty  nights,  after  which  God  wrote 
the  law  upon  tables,  and  delivered  them  to  him.  During  his 
absence,  however,  the  people  made  a  calf  which  lowed^  and  which 
they  worshipped.  The  chief  agent  in  this  business  was  one  Al 
Sameri,  who  declared  that  he  had  given  life  to  the  calf  by  sprink- 
ling on  it  a  handful  of  dust  from  the  footsteps  of  the  Messenger  of 
God.  The  calf  was  burnt  and  pulverized,  and  Al  Sameri  con- 
demned to  say  to  every  one  who  met  him.  Touch  me  not.  A 
singular  speech  of  Aaron's  is  recorded  here.  He  is  made  to  say, 
on  the  return  of  Moses,  "  Oh,  son  of  my  mother,  drag  me  not  by 
my  beard  nor  by  the  hair  of  my  head."i|  In  a  parallel  passage  it 
is  stated  that  Moses  threw  down  the  tables,  and  seized  his  brother 
by  the  hair. 

The  division  into  tribes,  which  is  spoken  of  as  arbitrary,  the 
appointment  of  the  seventy  elders,  the  smiting  of  the  rock,  the 
giving  of  manna  and  of  quails,  are  all  recorded. H  In  connexion 
with  these  incidents  we  find  the  following,  which  has  occasioned 
no  small  difficulty  to  the  hapless  commentators.  "  We  said,  enter 
into  this  city  (no  city  had  been  previously  mentioned)  and  eat  of 
the  provisions  thereof  plentifully  as  ye  will ;  and  enter  the  gate 
worshipping  and  say  Hittaton  !  We  will  pardon  your  sins  and 
give  increase  to  the  well-doers.     But  the  ungodly  changed  the 

•  xxviii.,  39.  t  vii.,  130,  131.  X  xxvi.,  53—67. 

■^  XX.,  94.  ]|  yii.,  136.  IT  ii.  and  vii. 


598  THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN. 

expression  into  another  different  from  what  had  been  spoken, 
&€."•  The  following  passages  are  no  less  valuable.  "  Ask  them 
concerning  the  city  by  the  sea,  when  they  profaned  the  Sabbath  ; 
when  their  iish  came  unto  them  on  their  Sabbath  day,  appearing 
openly  on  the  water,  but  on  the  day  whereon  they  did  not  keep 
the  Sabbath,  they  came  not  unto  them  *  *  *  And  when  they 
proudly  refused  to  dfesist  from  what  had  been  forbidden  them,  we 
said  to  them,  be  ye  transformed  into  apes^  driven  away  from  the 
society  of  men  *  *  *  And  we  shook  Mount  Sinai  over  them  as 
though  it  had  been  a  covering."!  Having  despatched  the  fish  and 
the  apes,  we  must  by  no  means  overlook  the  cow,  since  it  has  given 
name  to  one  of  the  longest  chapters  in  the  Koran,J  and  since  it 
affords  a  proof  of  the  divine  legation  of  Moses,  which  he  has  him- 
self forgotten  to  record.  The  story  may  be  gathered  from  the 
following  dialogue : 

•*  Moses.  God  commandeth  you  to  sacrifice  a  cow. 

People.  Dost  thou  make  a  jest  of  us  ? 

3f.  God  forbid  that  I  should  be  one  of  the  foolish  ! 

P.  Pray  for  us  unto  thy  Lord,  that  he  would  show  us  what  cow 
it  is. 

M.  She  is  neither  an  old  cow  nor  a  heifer,  but  of  middle  age 
between  both :  do  ye  therefore  what  ye  are  commanded. 

P.  Pray  for  us  unto  thy  Lord,  that  he  would  show  us  what 
colour  she  is  of 

M.  He  saith  she  is  a  yellow  cow,  intensely  yellow  ;  her  colour 
rejoiceth  the  beholders. 

P.  Pray  for  us  unto  thy  Lord,  that  he  would  show  us  further 
what  cow  it  is ;  for  several  cows  with  us  are  like  one  another ; 
and  we,  if  God  please,  will  be  directed. 

M.  He  saith,  she  is  a  cow  not  broken  to  plough  the  earth  or 
water  the  field  ;  a  sound  one,  there  is  no  blemish  in  her. 

P.  Now  hast  thou  brought  the  truth."§ 

**  Then,"  says  the  Book,  "  they  sacrificed  her  ;  yet  they  wanted 
but  little  of  leaving  it  undone.  And  when  ye  slew  a  man,  and 
contended  among  yourselves  concerning  him,  we  said,  strike  the 
dead  body  with  part  of  the  sacrificed  cow.  Thus  God  raised  the 
dead  to  life."|l  Among  the  many  animals  for  which  the  Moslems 
entertain  a  high  regard,  none,  we  believe,  not  even  Ezra's  ass,  nor 
the  seven  sleepers'  dog,  is  more  esteemed  than  this  middle-aged, 
intensely  yellow,  cow. 

^  In  connexion  with  the  history  of  Moses,  Karun  must  be  men- 
tioned. He  is  the  Croesus  of  oriental  history  and  fiction,  being 
described  in  the  Koran  as  immensely  rich.  Nothing  more  is 
there  related  of  him,  except  that  on  account  of  his  presumption  and 
ingratitude,  the  earth  opened  and  swallowed  him  up,  which  identi- 
fies him  with  the  Korah  of  the  Pentateuch.l 
« 

•  ii ,  28, 59.  t  vii.,  153,  156, 161.  %  The  second. 

5  II.,  67-71.  II  ii.,  72.  73.  IT  xxviii.,  77-83. 


THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN.  599 

The  only  other  incident  related  of  Moses,  is  a  purely  fictitious  one. 
It  is  interesting,  however,  in  itself,  and  also  because  it  has  fur- 
nished the  conception  and  the  leading  incidents  of  a  well-known 
poem,  Parnell's  Hermit.  Where  Mohammed  got  it,  is  a  matter  of 
dispute.  Lord  Teignmouth,  we  believe,  has  traced  it  into  Hin- 
dostan.  The  passage  in  the  Koran  occupies  some  pages  of  the 
eighteenth  chapter. 

From  Moses,  the  false  prophet  takes  a  sweeping  stride  to  Saul, 
whom  he  calls  Talut.  As  if  to  compensate  for  this  yawning 
chasm,  he  contrives  to  bring  into  connexion  with  this  prince,  two 
facts  belonging  to  two  other  periods.  After  mentioning  the 
application  made  by  the  Israelites  to  their  prophet  (Sale  adds 
Samuelj  in  capitals)  for  a  king  to  command  their  hosts,  he  says 
that  they  objected  to  the  person  chosen.  To  remove  this  diffi- 
culty, they  were  told  that  a  proof  of  his  divine  vocation  should 
be  given.  "  Verily  the  sign  of  his  kingdom  shall  be  that  the 
ark  shall  come  unto  you :  therein  shall  be  tranquillity  from  your 
Lord,  and  the  relics  which  have  been  left  by  the  family  of  Moses 
and  the  family  of  Aaron.  The  angels  shall  bring  it.  Verily,  this 
shall  be  a  sign  unto  you,  if  ye  believe."*  The  word,  which  Sale 
here  renders  tranquillity,  is  sekinah  or  sekinaton,  the  Hebrew 
sheckinah.  To  the  Arabic  commentators  it  seems  to  have  been 
exceedingly  mysterious. 

The  enemy  against  whom  Talut  led  the  Hebrews,  was  Goliath, 
here  called  Jalut.  The  form  in  which  these  names  appear,  is 
easily  explained.  It  is  well  known,  that  to  an  elevated  style 
oriental  rhetoric  makes  jingle  an  essential  requisite.  This  may 
result,  in  part,  from  organic  sensibility,  since  rhyme  is  confessedly 
a  product  of  the  east,  and.  since  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  furnish 
some  examples  of  paronomasia.f  The  proximate  cause  of  this 
perverted  taste,  however,  is  the  usage  of  the  Koran,  that  standing 
miracle  of  perfect  eloquence,  in  which  not  only  pages,  but  whole 
chapters,  have  a  rhythmus  and  a  rhyme,  which  to  our  ears  is 
paltry,  but  to  a  Turk's  or  Arab's  is  the  music  of  the  spheres.  This 
childish  weakness  leads  the  orientals  to  take  undue  liberties  with 
foreign  names.  The  Greeks,  who  were  above  this  folly,  had 
another  of  their  own.  Everything  with  them  must  have  a 
meaning,  sense  or  nonsense;  and  accordingly  they  tortured 
Persian  and  Phoenician  simples  into  Attic  compounds.  With  the 
Arabs  on  the  other  hand,  and  their  disciples,  sense  must  yield  to 

•  ii.,247. 

t  We  say  some  examples,  for  a  part  of  those  collected  by  Gesenius  cannot  be  fairly 
reckoned  as  belonging  to  this  class.  His  remarks  upon  the  subject  have  a  tendency, 
indeed,  to  make  the  reader  think  that  the  Bible  is  deformed  throughout  with  this 
most  offensive  form  of  rhetorical  affectation,  which  he  calls  a  Lieblingszierde  of  the 
Hebrew  language!  We  venture  to  affirm  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  cited 
instances  are  purely  accidental,  and  might  easily  be  matched  by  German  phrases  from 
the  Lehrgebaeude  ;  and  that  as  to  the  rest,  they  almost  all  occur  in  peculiar  idioma- 
tic and  proverbial  phrases,  not  as  in  Hariri,  at  the  end  of  every  clause  of  every  para- 
graph, prosaic  or  poetical. 


600  THB    HISTORICAL   STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN. 

sound.  Names  historically  cognate  must  likewise  rhyme  together. 
Thus  in  the  case  before  us,  Julat  really  varies  very  little  from 
Goliath,  the  radicals  being  the^  same.  But  poor  Saul  is  made 
to  rhyme  with  the  Philistine.  Talut  and  Jalut  is  a  combination 
full  of  beauty  to  an  Asiatic  ear.  So  is  Harut  and  Marut,  which 
occurs  in  this  same  chapter.*  So  is  Hahel  and  Cahel,  the  Moham- 
medan improvement  upon  Cain  and  Abel. 

In  the  account  of  Talut's  campaign  against  Jalut,  the  other 
misplaced  incident,  which  we  referred  to,  is  inserted  ;  Gideon's 
method  of  selecting  his  followers,  by  their  drinking,  is  transferred 

to  Saul.f 

Jalut  is  killed  by  David,  who  is  abruptly  introduced  for  the  pur- 
pose, and  correctly  spoken  of  as  Saul's  successor.J  Of  David  we 
are  elsewhere  told,  that  he  was  a  true  penitent,  that  he  was  endued 
with  strength,  that  he  was  inspired  with  the  art  of  making  coats 
of  mail,  that  the  mountains  sang  in  concert  with  him,  and  the  birds 
also,  a  notion  founded  probably  on  the  frequent  personifications 
and  apostrophes  in  the  book  of  Psalms.§  The  passage,  which  we 
are  now  about  to  quote,  is  an  instance  of  Mohammed's  skill  in 
divesting  his  stolen  scraps  of  all  historical,  rhetorical,  and  moral 
worth.  It  surpasses  even  the  example  before  given  from  the  his- 
tory of  Joseph,  as  a  specimen  of  the  Koranic  process  for  the  trans- 
mutation of  pathos  into  bathos.  Let  the  reader  turn  to  the  exqui- 
site parable,  by  means  of  which  the  prophet  Nathan  touched  his 
master's  c6nscience.||  With  that  passage  fresh  in  his  mind,  let 
him  read  as  follows.  "  Hath  the  story  of  the  two  adversaries 
come  to  thy  knowledge ;  when  they  ascended  over  the  wall  into 
the  upper  apartment,  when  they  went  in  to  David,  and  he  was 
afraid  of  them  ?  They  said.  Fear  not,  we  are  two  adversaries 
who  have  a  controversy  to  be  decided.  The  one  of  us  hath 
wronged  the  other :  wherefore  judge  between  us  with  truth,  and 
be  not  unjust  and  direct  us  into  the  even  way.  This  my  brother 
had  ninety  and  nine  sheep ;  and  I  had  only  one  ewe :  and  he  said, 
give  her  me  to  keep ;  and  he  prevailed  against  me  in  the  discourse 
which  we  had  together.  David  said,  verily  he  hath  wronged  thee 
in  demanding  thine  ewe  in  addition  to  his  own  sheep :  and  many 
of  them  who  are  concerned  together  in  business  wrong  one  another, 
except  those  who  believe  and  do  that  which  is  right ;  but  how  few 
are  they !  And  David  perceived  that  we  had  tried  him  by  this 
parable  [what  parable  ?J  and  he  asked  pardon  of  his  Lord,  and 
he  fell  down  and  bowed  himself  and  repented.  Wherefore  he 
forgave ^him  this  fault  [what  fault?]  and  he  shall  be  admitted  to 

abode 


Ho'c^^'    ••  tii..248.  tii.,250.  t  See  ch.  xxi.,  xxxiv.,  xxxviii 

II  i  Sam.,  xn.  ^  xxxviii..  22-2fi. 


THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN.  601 

guised/  *     A  little  disguised  !  disfigured,  mangled,  massacred,  he 
surely  meant  to  say. 

That  Solomonf  acts  a  most  conspicuous  part  in  oriental  fiction,  is 
known  to  every  reader  of  the  Thousand  and  One  Nights.  For  this 
distinction  he  is  indebted,  remotely  to  the  Rabbins,  more  directly 
to  the  Koran.  In  the  latter  may  be  found  the  germ — the  crude 
and  shapeless  elements — of  that  extravagant,  but  fascinating,  spe- 
cies of  romance,  which  the  western  Asaiatics  doat  upon  so  fondly, 
and  which,  in  the  hands  of  their  prolific  writers,'^has  grown  up  like 
an  enchanted  palace  full  of  mysteries  and  wonders,  of  ethereal 
spirits  and  of  airy  tongues  that  syllable  men's  names.  There  is 
something  in  the  eastern  tales  of  genii  and  fairies,  most  agreeably 
contrasted  with  the  sombre  aspect  of  the  Gothic  legends  which 
people  our  nurseries  with  grisly  goblins.  There  is  something 
gross,  as  well  as  dismal,  in  the  latter,  which  offends  the  taste,  while 
it  agitates  the  nerves.  The  eastern  fables,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
airy  and  poetical.  Their  fictions  savour  of  the  palm-grove  and 
the  fountain,  ours  of  the  church-yard  and  the  charnel-house.  Both 
are  equally  unreal  and  unprofitable.  But  their  very  unreality  (to 
coin  a  word)  is  different.  Both  are  mere  dreams.  But  theirs  are 
the  dreams  of  childish  gaiety,  ours  are  the  somnia  cDgri,  the  visions 
of  disease.  And  as  to  their  unprofitableness,  when  we  consider 
the  eflfects  of  ghost  stories  heard  in  childhood,  we  can  boldly  say, 
that  if  we  must  have  the  stimulus  of  falsehood,  we  would  rather 
have  the  exhilarating  gas  of  eastern  fancy  than  the  stupefying 
opiate  of  home-brewed  superstition.  Of  that  sort  of  fiction,  which 
has  led  us  into  this  digression,  the  embryo  exists  in  the  Koranic 
account  of  Solomon.  He  is  represented,  not  only  as  remarkable 
for  wisdom,  but  as  gifted  with  sundry  supernatural  advantages; 
as  empowered  to  control  the  winds,J  as  acquainted  with  the  lan- 
guage of  animals  ;§  as  possessed  of  a  fountain  which  emitted  mol- 
ten brass  ;||  but  above  all,  as  invested  with  absolute  authority 
over  the  Jinn  or  Genii.  We  have  said,  that  with  respect  to  this 
class  of  beings  there  is  some  obscurity  in  the  Koran.  It  should 
seem  from  certain  passages,  that  they  are  what  we  call  demons  ;1[ 
and  yet  the  oriental  fabulists  do  not  exhibit  them  precisely  in  that 
light.  The  probabiHty  is,  that  there  has  been  an  amalgamation  of 
the  Jewish  doctrine  with  another  from  a  diflJerent  quarter,  probably 
from  India.  Accordingly,  it  seems  to  be  the  popular  opinion  in 
the  west  of  Asia,  that  between  the  good  angels  and  the  devils 
there  are  two  intermediate  orders,  the  one  called  Peris  by  the  Per- 
sians, excluded  from  heaven,  yet  allowed  to  hope  :  the  other,  whom 
they  call  Divs,  unhappy  and  depraved,  yet  not  condemned  to  hell. 
The  Arabic  word  Jinn  sometimes  denotes  the  devils,  sometimes  the 
Divs  just  mentioned.  In  which  sense  Mohammed  used  it,  we  do 
not  know.    Most  probably  he  did  not  know  himself,  or  rather 

•  Vol.  ii.,  p.  319.  London,  1801.  f  Suleiman. 

I  xxi.,  81.  §  xxvii.,  17-19.  ||  xxxiv.,  12. 

IT  E.  g.,  ch.  xxxviii.,  38,  where  the  word  used  is  Shayatin,  or  Satans. 


602  THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN. 

employed  it  to  express  the  vague  idea  suggested  by  his  converse 
with  the  Jews  on  one  hand,  and  the  Magians  on  the  other.  Be 
that  as  it  may,  he  constitutes  King  Solomon  sole  monarch  of 
Jinnistan,  the  oriental  Faery-land.  For  him  the  genii  dived  and 
quarried,  carved  and  built,  ard  rendered  other  services  recorded 
in  the  Koran,  which  we  have  not  time  to  copy.*  It  might  be  a 
question  of  some  interest,  how  far  these  fables  may  be  traced  to 
misconceptions  of  the  Scriptures.  The  fountain  of  molten  brass, 
and  the  mysterious  manufacture,  by  unseen  hands,  of  dishes  like 
fish  ponds,  and  gigantic  cauldrons,t  have  certainly  more  than 
a  fortuitous  connexion  with  the  works  of  Hiram  as  described  in 
Scripture. 

Tne  only  real  incident  in  Solomon's  history  which  is  distinctly 
mentioned,  is  the  visit  of  the  queen  of  Sheba,  and  even  that  is 
loaded  with  embellishments.  The  marvellous  account  of  Solo- 
mon's march  at  the  head  of  an  army  of  genii,  birds,  and  men ; 
the  intelligence  brought  to  him  from  Sheba  by  a  lapwing;  his 
letter  to  the  Queen  ;  the  transportation  of  her  throne  through  the 
air  by  the  agency  of  genii ;  the  sudden  conversion  of  herself  and 
all  her  nobles  to  the  true  religion  (Islam)  ;  and  other  equally 
authentic  statements  may  be  seen  at  large  by  turning  to  the  twenty- 
seventh  chapter  in  Sale's  Koran. 

Some  of  the  statements  and  allusions  in  this  history  are  so  con- 
cise and  obscure  that  they  seem  to  imply  a  previous  acquaintance 
with  the  facts  which  they  relate  to  on  the  part  of  those  who  were 
to  read  the  Koran.  For  example  :  "  When  the  horses  standing  on 
three  feet  aud  touching  the  ground  with  the  edge  of  the  fourth  footA 
and  swift  in  the  course  were  set  before  him,"  &c.  (See  Sale.) 
Again,  "  We  also  tried  Solomon  and  placed  on  his  throne  a  coun- 
terfeit body.  Afterwards  he  turned  unto  God  and  said,  oh  Lord 
forgive  me."§  And  again,  in  relation  to  his  death :  "  When  we 
had  decreed  that  Solomon  should  die,  nothing  discovered  his  death 
unto  them,  except  the  reptile  of  the  earth  which  gnawed  his  stafF."|| 
This  the  commentators  explain  by  saying,  that  the  time  of  his 
death  arrived  before  the  temple  was  completed,  and  that  in  order 
to  keep  the  genii  still  at  work,  his  corpse  remained  in  a  standing 
posture  leaning  on  his  staff,  till  they  had  performed  their  task. 
This  they  did  in  about  a  year,  at  the  end  of  which  time  a  worm 

fnawed  the  staff  in  two,  and  the  body  fell.  This  gloss  is  favoured 
y  the  words  immediately  succeeding  in  the  Koran.  "  Then  the 
genii  plainly  perceived,  that  if  they  had  known  what  was  secret, 
ley  had  not  continued  in  a  vile  punishment."  Sale  justly  observes 
that  this  story  has  perfectly  the  air  of  a  Jewish  invention.il  But 
even  though  it  had  not  been  forthcoming  from  that  quarter,  there 
would  have  been  no  difficulty  in  the  e^^egesis.     The  orthodox 

•KXviii..3S.  txxxiv.,13. 

I  Ihe  gixteen  words  in  ttaliea  correspond  to  three  in  the  original:   of  course  the 
meaning  must  be  very  dubious. 
§  xxxTiii.,  35,  3b.  ||  xxxiv.,  14  ^  Vol.  ii.,  p.  289.    Lond..  1801 


THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN.  603 

expounders  of  the  Koran  have  a  very  easy  process  for  solving  the 
enigmas  and  salving  the  absurdities  of  the  sacred  text.  On  a 
single  fact,  or  an  obscure  allusion,  they  erect  a  superstructure  of 
minute  details  by  way  of  explanation,  descending  even  to  dates, 
genealogies,  and  surnames.  Thus  Al  Beidawi  does  not  scruple  to 
enumerate  by  name  the  Egyptian  magicians,  placing  Simeon 
(Simon  Magus  ?)  at  their  head  :  though  on  this  important  point  he 
is  probably  at  swords*  points  v^rith  his  brother  Jallallodin  ;  for,  of 
course,  each  commentator  is  at  liberty  to  manufacture  stories  at 
his  pleasure,  and  he  whose  fables  are  the  most  ingenious  bears 
away  the  palm.  This  license,  notwithstanding,  they  prefer,  where 
it  is  possible,  to  borrow  from  the  Rabbins,  through  the  medium  of 
the  Sonnah  or  canonical  traditions. 

The  only  other  characters  transferred  from  the  Old  Testament 
history  to  the  Koran  are  Job  and  Jonah.  The  account  of  them  is 
so  concise  that  we  give  the  substance  of  it  in  Mohammed's  words. 
**  Remember  our  servant  Job,*  when  he  cried  unto  his  Lord,  say- 
ing, verily  Satan  hath  afflicted  me  with  calamity  and  pain  ;t  and 
thou  art  the  most  merciful  of  those  who  show  mercy  ?  And  we 
answered  his  prayer  and  delivered  him  from  his  distress.J  And  it 
was  said  to  him,  strike  with  thy  foot.  This  is  for  a  cold  bath  and  a 
drinking  place.  And  we  restored  to  him  his  family  and  as  many  more 
with  them,  through  our  mercy,  and  for  an  admonition  unto  those 
who  are  endued  with  understanding.  [And  we  said]  take  in  thy 
hand  a  handful  [Sale  adds,  of  rods]  and  therewith  strike  [Sale 
adds,  thy  wife].  And  break  not  thine  oath.  Verily  we  found  him 
a  patient  person  ;  how  excellent  a  servant  was  he,  for  he  was  one 
who  frequently  turned  himself  to  God."§ 

Jonah  is,  in  the  Koran,  called  by  two  names,  Yunas  and  DhuVnun, 
This  last  denotes  about  the  same  that  Fish-man,  or  He  of  the  fish 
would  in  English.  His  story  is  as  follows  ;  "  Jonah  was  one  of 
those  sent  by  us.  He  departed  in  a  rage,  and  thought  that  we 
could  not  exercise  our  power  over  him.  When  he  fled  into  the 
loaded  ship  ;  and  they  cast  lots ;  and  he  was  condemned  ;  and  the 
fish  swallowed  him,  for  he  was  culpable.  And  if  he  had  not  been 
one  of  those  who  praised  God,  verily  he  had  remained  in  its  belly 
unto  the  day  of  resurrection.  And  he  cried  aloud  in  darkness. 
There  is  no  God  besides  thee  !  Praise  be  to  thee  !  I  am  one  of 
the  wicked.  And  we  answered  him  and  delivered  him  from  his 
distress.  And  we  cast  him  on  the  naked  shore  ;  and  he  was  sick ; 
and  we  caused  a  gourd  plant  to  grow  over  him ;  and  we  sent  him 
to  a  hundred  thousand  persons  or  more,  and  they  believed. 
Wherefore  we  prolonged  their  lives  for  a  season."|| 

The  account  of  John  the  Baptist  in  the  Koran,  approaches  very 
nearly  to  the  truth.  We  are  not  told  who  Zacharias  was,  but  are 
informed  that  he  prayed  for  a  son  because  he  was  afraid  of  his 

*  Ayyub.  f  xxxviii.,  42.  %  ^fxi.,  82,  83. 

§  xxxriii.,  43-45.  |I  xxi.,  87.    xxxvii.,  138  146. 


604  THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN. 

heirs  at  law.  An  answer  was  brought  by  angels  to  his  chamber, 
assuring  him  that  he  should  have  a  son,  and  should  call  his  name 
Yahya  (John),  a  name  never  borne,  as  he  w^as  told,  by  any  one 
before.  Zacharias  doubted  and  desired  a  sign.  He  was,  there- 
fore, informed,  that  he  should  not  speak  for  three  days  except  by 
gesture.  He  was  also  told  that  his  son  should  be  a  holy  man,  and 
should  bear  witness  to  the  Word,  which  the  Moslems  properly 
apply  to  Christ,  referring  the  name,  however,  to  his  miraculous 
conception,  produced  by  the  mere  command  or  word  of  God. 
Nothing  more  is  said  of  John  except  what  follows.  "  [We  said  to 
him]  receive  the  book  [of  the  law]  with  resolution  [to  observe  it]  ; 
and  we  gave  him  wisdom  when  a  boy,  and  mercy,  and  purity,  and 
he  was  devout  and  dutiful  to  his  parents,  and  was  not  proud  or 
rebellious.  Peace  be  on  him  the  day  of  his  birth,  and  the  day  of 
his  death,  and  the  day  of  his  resurrection."*  Not  a  word  is  said 
of  his  peculiar  mode  of  life,  nor  even  of  his  office  as  baptizer. 

The  statements  of  the  Koran,  in  relation  to  the  Virgin  and  our 
Saviour,  when  picked  out  and  arranged,  form  the  following  narra- 
tive. The  wife  of  one  Imran  (whom  Mohammed  seems  to  con- 
found with  Amram,  notwithstanding  Sale's  denial),  in  expectation 
of  a  son,  devoted  him  to  the  service  of  the  Lord.  The  child,  how- 
ever, proved  to  be  a  daughter,  whom  the  mother  named  Mariam, 
or  Mary,  and  solemnly  commended  her  to  the  divine  protection. 
The  care  of  the  child  was,  after  a  time,  committed  to  Zacharias 
the  father  of  John,  who  was  surprised,  when  he  visited  the  cham- 
ber, to  find  her  supplied  with  food  without  his  interference.  Mary, 
on  being  questioned,  answered,  "  It  is  from  God.  He  supplieth 
whom  he  will,  without  measure."f 

The  annunciation  and  miraculous  conception  of  our  Lord  are 
distinctly  mentioned.  God  is  said  to  have  conveyed  the  intelli- 
gence to  Mary  by  his  Spirit,  as,  in  another  place,J  he  is  said  to 
nave  sent  down  the  Koran  by  his  Holy  Spirit.  Both  these  expres- 
sions the  Mohammedans  apply  to  the  angel  Gabriel,  in  which  point 
they  agree  verbally  with  those  Christian  writers,  who  consider 
Gabriel  a  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  annunciation  was  in 
these  words  :  "  Oh  Mary,  verily  God  sendeth  thee  good  tidings, 
that  thou  shalt  bear  the  Word,  proceeding  from  himself:  his  name 
shall  be  Christ  Jesus  the  son  of  Mary,  honourable,  honourable  in 
this  world  and  the  world  to  come,  &c.  He  shall  speak  to  men  in 
the  cradle,  and  when  he  is  grown  up :  he  shall  be  one  of  the 
richleous."§  Not  a  word  is  said  of  Joseph,  or  of  any  espousals. 
Nor  arc  the  stable  and  the  manger  mentioned.  The  suspicion, 
which  by  Matthew  is  ascribed  to  Joseph,  is  spoken  of  as  common 
to  her  friends  and  relatives.  One  of  the  reproachful  speeches 
here  set  down  begins,  «  Oh,  sister  of  Aaron  !"  a  sufficient  proof 
that  the  Miriam  of  the  Pentateuch  was  stupidly  confounded  with 

•xix.,1-15.    iii.,  38-40.  fiii.,  35-37- 

;  xn.,  102.  §  iii,^  45^  46,    xix.,  16-28. 


THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN.  605 

the  Mary  of  the  Gospel.  Yet  even  in  the  face  of  this  strong  fact, 
Sale  is  "  afraid"  that  the  charge  of  anachronism  cannot  be  sus- 
tained ! 

"  But  she  made  signs  to  the  child  [to  answer  them]  ;  and  they 
said,  how  shall  he  speak  to  us  who  is  an  infant  in  the  cradle  ? 
Whereupon  the  child  said,  verily  I  am  the  servant  of  God  ;  he 
hath  given  me  the  book  [of  the  Gospel]  and  hath  appointed  me  a 
prophet.  And  he  hath  made  me  blessed  wheresoever  I  shall  be ; 
and  hath  commanded  me  to  observe  prayer,  and  give  alms,  so 
long  as  I  shall  live ;  and  he  hath  made  me  dutiful  to  my  mother, 
and  hath  not  made  me  proud  or  vicious.  Peace  be  on  me  the  day 
whereon  I  was  born,  and  the  day  whereon  I  shall  die,  and  the  day 
whereon  I  shall  be  raised  to  life.  This,"  says  Mohammed,  "  was 
Jesus  the  son  of  Mary,  the  Word  of  truth  concerning  whom  they 
doubt.  It  is  not  worthy  of  God,  that  he  should  have  a  son.  God 
forbid  !  When  he  decreeth  a  thing  he  only  saith  unto  it.  Be,  and 
it  is.  And  verily  God  is  my  Lord  and  your  Lord  ;  wherefore 
serve  him  ;  this  is  the  right  way.  Yet  the  sectaries  differ  among 
themselves  concerning  Jesus,  but  woe  be  unto  those  who  are  unbe- 
lievers, because  of  their  appearance  at  the  great  day."*  A  very 
respectable  Socinian  sermon,  with  the  exception  of  the  concluding 
woe,  which  is  rather  too  illiberal. 

To  the  children  of  Israel,  Jesus  offered  to  perform  the  following 
miracles ;  to  make  a  bird  of  clay  and  then  animate  it  with  his 
breath  ;  to  give  sight  to  one  born  blind  ;  to  heal  the  leprous ;  to 
raise  the  dead  ;  and  to  declare  by  inspiration  what  they  ate,  and 
what  provision  they  had  stored  away.  This  last  appears  to  strike 
the  Mussulman  with  special  force,  as  it  holds  a  conspicuous  place 
among  Mohammed's  own  alleged  performances.  A  full  detail  of 
this  pretended  wonder  may  be  found  in  the  treatise  written  about 
twenty  years  ago,  by  Aga  Acber,  a  Mollah  of  Shiraz,  in  reply  to 
Henry  Martyn.  A  large  part  of  the  tract  is  given  both  in  Persian 
and  English,  by  Professor  Lee  in  the  "  Controversial  Tracts  on 
Christianity  and  Mahommedanism."f 

Jesus  also  informed  them,  that  he  came  to  confirm  the  truth  of 
the  Law  revealed  before  him,  but  at  the  same  time  to  abrogate 
some  of  its  restrictions.  The  Jews,  however,  charged  him  with 
imposture,  and  ascribed  his  miracles,  as  usual,  to  magic.  Jesus 
then  asked  them  who  would  be  his  helpers  in  the  cause  of  God  ? 
To  this  appeal  none  responded  but  the  apostles  or  Hawariyun,  a 
word  which  signifies  sincere  or  candid^  but  is  applied  by  Moham- 
med to  our  Lord's  immediate  followers.J 

In  the  chapter  called  The  Table,  being  the  fifth  in  order,  we  find 
a  story  which  was  probably  derived,  remotely  and  obliquely,  from 
the  Scriptural  account  of  our  Lord's  last  supper,  and  may  have 
been  designed  to  account  for  the  solemn  and  mysterious  observance 
which  was  seen  to  prevail  among  the  oriental  Christians.     The 

•  xix.,  29-37.  t  Cambridge  (Eng.),  1823.  %  iii.,  49-52.  Ixi.,  6. 


606  THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN. 

statement  is,  that  the  apostles  said  to  Christ,  "  Oh,  Jesus,  son  of 
Mary,  can  the  Lord  cause  a  table  to  come  down  to  us  from 
heaven  ?"  He  replied,  "  Fear  God  if  ye  be  true  believers."  They 
persisted,  however,  on  the  ground  that  they  must  have  some  satis- 
fying proof  of  his  divine  legation.  Jesus  then  said,  "Oh  God  our 
Lord,  cause  a  table  to  come  down  to  us  from  heaven,  and  let  the 
day  of  its  descent  be  a  festival  day*  to  us,  to  the  first  of  us,  and  to 
the  last  of  us  [i.e.  to  us  and  our  successors],  and  do  thou  provide 
food  for  us  ;  for  thou  art  the  best  provider."  God  replied  that  it 
should  be  done,  but  declared  that  all  who  withstood  such  evidence 
should  inevitably  suffer  an  aggravated  punishment.f  It  may  be 
well  to  add,  that  among  the  remarkable  days  in  the  Mohammedan 
calendar  is  one  called  Yd-Mesiah,  or  the  Festival  of  Christ,  being 
that  on  which  this  table  is  supposed  to  have  descended. 

No  other  of  the  acts  of  the  apostles  is  recorded  in  the  Koran,  if 
we  except  an  obscure  and  confused  statement  in  the  chapter  called 
Ya  Sin.  We  are  there  told  that  two  of  Christ's  apostles  came  to 
a  city,  for  the  purpose  of  preaching,  and  were  joined  on  their 
arrival  by  a  third  believer.  The  name  of  the  city  is  not  mentioned 
in  the  text,  though  Sale  has  inserted  ANTIOCH  in  capitals,  accord- 
ing to  the  commentators.  The  people,  instead  of  hearing  them, 
forbade  their  preaching  upon  pain  of  death  by  stoning.  The  apos- 
tles continued,  however,  to  exhort  them,  and  while  they  were  so 
doing,  "  a  man  came  hastily  from  the  further  parts  of  the  city," 
and  made  a  very  unintelligible  speech  in  the  apostles'  favour.  The 
narrative  then  proceeds  abruptly,  "  It  was  said  to  him,  enter  into 
paradise,"  leaving  us  to  infer  that  he  was  stoned,  which  inference 
is  introduced  by  Sale  into  the  text.  Here,  it  would  seem,  we  are 
presented  with  the  death  of  Stephen  and  that  of  the  penitent  thief 
in  a  compound  state.  We  are  informed,  moreover,  that  the  city 
was  destroyed.^ 

The  next  passage  that  we  shall  advert  to,  is  the  famous  one  with 
which  the  zealous  Moslem  stops  the  mouth  of  Christian  cavillers, 
and  which,  in  his  opinion,  is  abundantly  sufficient  to  decide  the 
controversy,  wholly  and  for  ever.  It  is  as  follows :  "  Jesus,  the  son 
of  Mary,  said,  oh  children  of  Israel,  verily  I  am  the  apostle  of 
GJod  sent  to  you,  confirming  the  Law,  that  was  before  me,  and 
bringing  good  tidings  of  an  apostle  who  shall  come  after  me, 
nanied  Ahmed."||  All  that  need  be  said  in  explanation,  is,  that 
Ahmed  and  Mohammed  are  regular  derivatives  from  one  root,  and 
are  nearly  synonymous,  the  latter  meaning  Praised,  and  the  former 
Praise-worthy,  or  in  the  superlative.  Most  Laudable.  Whether 
the  pseudapostle  was   actually  known  in  common    life  by  both 

•  Literally,  let  it  be  a  festival. 

t  v.,  112-115.  There  is  a  remarkable  coincidence  between  the  language  of  the 
Apostles  here  and  that  of  the  Israelites,  Ps.  Ixxviii.,  19.  Mohammed  may  very  pos- 
sibly have  mingled  the  events.  No  elements  are  too  discordant  to  enter  into  his 
ontempered  mortar. 

t  Richardson's  Dictionary,  p.  1038. 

§  xxxTi,  13-29.  H  ixi.,  6. 


THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN.  607 

names,  is  of  little  moment.  To  an  Arab  the  very  sound  would  be 
sufficient  to  identify  them,  even  if  tradition  had  not  fixed  the  appli- 
cation far  beyond  the  reach  of  oversight  or  error.  It  admits  of 
doubt,  whether  this  false  citation  was  a  sheer  invention  of  Moham- 
med's own,  or  whether  it  was  palmed  upon  him  by  his  Christian 
accessaries.  The  question  depends  upon  the  general  view  which 
is  taken  of  his  character  and  that  of  his  imposture.  On  the  sup- 
position that  he  was  himself  a  dupe,  in  whole  or  in  part,  it  seems 
most  likely  that  this  forged  prophecy  was  furnished  by  another ; 
for  if  he  had  manufactured  it,  he  would  probably  have  shunned  all 
ambiguity  by  using  his  real,  or  his  most  familiar  name.  If,  on  the 
contrary,  he  laid  his  plans  sagaciously,  which  is  the  common  the- 
ory, this  very  equivoque  resolves  itself  into  a  stroke  of  policy,  a 
sly  contrivance  to  elude  suspicion,  by  affecting  the  obscurity  which 
most  men  look  for  in  a  bona  fide  prophecy. 

This  notable  prediction  is  of  course  regarded  by  all  true  believers 
as  an  accurate  quotation  from  the  uncorrupted  gospel.  For  they 
admit  that  there  was  once  a  gospel  pure  and  undefiled,  now  utterly 
disfigured  by  malicious  mutilation.  Here  is  a  spot  of  ground  on 
which  the  champion  of  the  cross  must  be  prepared  for  battle.  It 
is  easy  for  us,  assuming  all  the  controverted  points,  to  laugh  at 
the  Mohammedan  opinion.  But  on  missionary  ground,  in  actual 
conflict  with  intelligent,  though  prejudiced  and  obstinate  opponents, 
a  laugh  will  hardly  do.  Nor  will  a  simple  charge  of  falsehood 
and  absurdity,  however  gravely  urged,  decide  the  contest.  Its 
only  result,  most  probably,  would  be  a  volley  of  Arabic  or  Turkish 
curses,  and,  where  the  necessary  power  was  possessed,  a  summary 
reductio  ad  absurdum  in  the  shape  of  the  bastinado.  How  could 
it  be  otherwise  indeed  ?  To  make  Mohammed  out  a  liar,  you  urge 
the  very  fact  which  they  employ  to  prove  the  corruption  of  the 
Christian  Scriptures.  You  tell  them  that  their  Book  is  false,  because 
it  puts  words  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  which  he  never  uttered. 
They  tell  you  that  your  Book  is  garbled,  for  it  omits  a  most  remark- 
able and  memorable  prophecy.  Can  such  recriminations  prove  a 
point  ?  Surely  not.  The  only  human  means  thatcan  avail  in  such  a 
case  is  argument, legitimate  argument,  logically  accurate,  historically 
just.  Now,  we  ask,  is  it  probable  that  men  who  cannot  reason  at 
home,  will  be  able  to  reason  at  Cairo  or  Algiers  ?  And  in  view  of 
the  efforts  which  are  likely  to  be  made  for  the  conversion  of  the 
Mussulman,  we  also  ask,  would  it  be  prudent,  would  it  be  right, 
for  minds  without  strength  or  discipline,  to  be  enlisted  in  this 
war  ?  Let  those  who  think  that  Moslems  cannot  argue  read  fheir 
subtle  arguments,  and  bear  in  mind  the  fact,  that  Martyn,  the  first 
mathematical  proficient  in  his  class  at  Cambridge,  found  no  cause 
to  repent  the  rigid  discipline  of  St.  John's  and  the  Senate  House.* 

•  We  take  this  opportunity  of  asking  for  the  ground  of  the  assertion  sometimes 
Tented,  that  Martyn  was  a  man  of  very  common-place  abilities.  His  course  of  life 
precluded  a  display  of  brilliant  talent,  and  his  printed  sermons  cannot  furnish  a  cri- 
terion, considering  the  light  in  which  pulpit  performances  are  viewed  by  English 


608  THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF   THE    KORAN. 

We  have  chosen  to  express  these  opinions  in  connexion  with  the 
main  point  of  controversy  betv^^een  Islam  and  the  gospel. 

The  Moslems,  it  is  well  known,  like  the  Cerinthians  and  other 
early  heretics,  deny  the  crucifixion  of  our  Saviour.  The  Koranic 
doctrine  upon  that  point  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  quo- 
tation :  "  They  [the  Jews]  contrived  a  plot ;  but  God  is  the  best 
contriver  of  plots.  And  God  said,  oh  Jesus,  I  am  about  to  make 
thee  die,  and  to  take  thee  up  to  myself;  and  I  will  cleanse  [or  free] 
thee  from  the  unbelievers,  and  I  will  place  thy  followers  above  the 
unbelievers,  at  [or  until]  the  day  of  resurrection."*  "  They  [the 
Jews]  say.  We  have  killed  Christ  Jesus  [Ysa  the  Messiah]  the  son 
of  Mary,  God's  apostle  ;  whereas  they  did  not  kill  nor  crucify  him, 
but  he  was  counterfeited  [or  personated]  to  them.t  And  those 
who  differed  respecting  him  were  in  doubt  about  it ;  and  indeed 
they  had  no  knowledge,  but  followed  mere  conjecture.  They  did 
not  really  kill  him ;  but  God  took  him  up  to  himself,  and  God  is 
mighty  and  wise."j 

To  set  Mohammed's  unitarianism  in  a  clearer  light,  we  need 
only  quote  a  few  sentences  from  different  parts  of  the  Koran. 
♦*  They  are  certainly  infidels  who  say,  that  God  is  Christ  the  son  of 
Mary.  For  Christ  himself  said,  oh  children  of  Israel,  worship 
God,  my  Lord  and  your  Lord.  Verily  he  who  gives  God  a  com- 
panion shall  be  excluded  from  paradise  by  God,  and  the  fire  shall 
be  his  dwelling  place.  Surely  they  are  infidels  who  say  that  God 
is  the  third  of  three  ;  whereas  there  is  no  God  but  one  God,  and  if 
they  do  not  cease  from  what  they  say,  grievous  torments,"  &c.  &c.§ 
"  Christ  Jesus,  the  son  of  Mary,  was  an  apostle  from  God,  even 
his  Word,  and  a  Spirit  proceeding  from  him.  Verily  God  is  one 
God.  Far  be  it  from  him  that  he  should  have  a  son.  Christ  does 
not  disdain  to  be  God's  servant,"  &c.  &c.||  "  When  God  said" 
[Sale  renders  it,  when  God  shall  say  at  the  last  day  ;  but  the  verb 


is  in  the  past  tense,  without  anything  to  modify  it]  "  oh  Jesus,  son 

say  to  men.  Take  me  and. 
deities  besides  God  ?     He  replied,  God  forbid  !   I  have  no  right  to 


of  Mary,  didst  thou  say  to  men.  Take  me  and.  my  mother  for 


assert  what  does  not  truly  belong  to  me.  I  have  told  them  only 
what  thou  didst  command  me,  to  wit,  serve  God  my  Lord  and  your 
Lord."TI  "  He  is  only  a  servant  whom  we  have  highly  favoured, 
and  set  forth  as  an  example  to  the  children  of  Israel,  and  verily  he 
shall  be  a  sign  of  the  Hour"  (viz.,  the  last).** 

"  Verily,  Jesus,  with  respect  to  God,  was  just  like  Adam.  He 
created  him  of  dust,  and  then  said  to  him.  Be,  and  he  was."tt 

Besides  the  denial  of  our  Lord's  divinity,  the  attentive  reader 
will  observe,  throughout  these  sentences,  another  strong  resem- 
blance to  a  certain  class  of  writers,  in  the  clamorous  assertion  of 

churchmen.  We  are  acquainted  with  no  proofs  of  his  inferiority,  and  his  standing 
at  Cambridge  is  at  least  a  presumption  in  favour  of  his  powers. 

*  iii.,  54,  55,  f  "  He  was  represented  by  one  in  his  likeness  "    Sale. 

t  IV.,  155-157.  §v.,  74,  75.  |I  iv.,  168,  169. 

^  v.,  116, 117.  ••  xliii.,  58-61.  ft  i"-»  59. 


THE   HISTORICAL   STATEMENTS    OF   THE   KORAN.  609 

some  tenets,  as  peculiar  to  themselves — such  as,  that  God  is  one, 
that  there  are  not  three  Gods,  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  servant  of 
God-^tenets  which  all  true  Christians  hold  as  fully  and  as  firmly 
as  any  Socinian  or  Mussulman  on  earth.  It  is  but  just,  however, 
to  repeat,  that  the  Arab's  creed  breathes  too  much  of  a  fire-and- 
fagot  spirit  to  please  the  fastidious  taste  of  a  latitudinarian. 

We  believe  we  have  now  noticed  all  the  fragments  of  the  sacred 
history,  occurring  in  the  Koran.  It  must  be  observed,  however, 
that  some  of  the  stories  are  repeated  half-a-dozen  times  over,  in  as 
many  different  places.  In  that  case,  we  have  selected  the  most 
minute  and  circumstantial  of  the  narratives,  adding  the  facts  which 
it  omitted  from  the  parallel  passages. 

Besides  the  statements  which  may  thus  be  traced  to  scriptural 
originals,  there  are  a  number  of  stories  and  allusions  in  the  Koran 
which  derive  their  origin  exclusively  from  profane  history,  rabbi- 
nical traditions,  monastic  legends,  or  the  romantic  fictions  of  Arabia 
itself.  It  is  true,  that  even  those  purloined  from  Scripture  have 
received  embelUshments  from  all  these  quarters,  but  we  now  refer 
to  such  as  rest  entirely  upon  that  foundation.  Of  this  kind  are  the 
celebrated  story  of  the  Seven  Sleepers,  the  account  of  the  Prophets 
Hud  and  Saleh,  the  obscure  and  scanty  notices  respecting  DhuMkar- 
nein,  commonly  supposed  to  be  Alexander  the  Great,  and  other 
minor  passages  in  historical  form.  How  far  some  of  these  might  be 
identified  as  mutilated  fragments  of  the  Bible  and  Apocrypha,  we  do 
not  now  inquire.  At  first  view  they  have  no  such  aspect,  and  our 
only  object  here  has  been  to  give  a  connected  view  of  those  whose 
pedigree  is  obvious.*  We  are  aware  that  we  have  been  employed 
upon  a  very  humble  task,  in  collecting  and  arranging  the  absurdi- 
ties and  falsehoods  of  an  impudent  impostor.  Perhaps,  however, 
we  have  done  for  our  readers  what  they  would  not  have  been 
willing  to  do  for  themselves,  and  what  some  of  them  may  find  it 
just  as  well  to  be  acquainted  with.  Our  hasty  and  imperfect,  but 
methodical  synopsis  will,  at  least,  present  a  clearer  view  of  the 
Mohammedan  belief  upon  the  points  in  question,  than  could 
possibly  be  gained  by  a  continuous  perusal  of  the  book  itself. 
We  have  also  had  occasion,  here  and  there,  to  point  out  instances 
of  Sale's  strange  fondness  for  interpolations  tending  to  raise  his 
author  in  the  reader's  estimation.  We  have  often  been  at  a  loss  to 
reconcile  his  scrupulous  precision  as  a  mere  translator,  with  the 
disingenuousness  of  his  latent  glosses  and  disguised  interpola- 
tions. Some  one  has  said  that  "  Sale  was  half  a  Mussulman  ;"  but 
this  we  think  incredible.  That  he  was  not  a  very  zealous  Chris- 
tian, may  be  safely  granted,  but  we  cannot  think  it  fair  to  push  the 
accusation  further.  Our  own  explanation  of  the  matter  is,  that  he 
was  biassed  by  the  feelings  which  all  scholars  feel  in  relation  to 

*  In  doing  this  we  have  confined  ourselves,  in  almost  every  instance,  to  the  text  of 
the  Koran.  The  commentators  explain  everything  abundantly,  as  may  be  learned 
from  the  specimens  in  Sale.  We  have  chosen  rather  to  exhibit  its  native  imperfec- 
tion and  obscurity, 

39 


610  THE    HISTORICAL   STATEMENTS    OF   THE   KORAN. 

their  favourite  pursuits,  and  to  the  subjects  of  their  diligent  and 
long  continued  study.  That  Sale  did  study  both  the  Koran  and 
the  commentators  deeply  and  successfully,  no  one  can  doubt  who 
has  carefully  inspected  his  translation.  As  to  the  rest,  we  suppose 
that  he  was  led  to  interpolate  a  little  by  a  natural  unwillingness  to 
look  upon  the  object  of  his  toils  as  wholly  worthless.  When  we 
have  spent  time  and  labour  on  a  thing,  as  valuable,  we  are  loth  to 
see  it  treated  with  contempt.  This  explanation  we  prefer,  because 
we  would  have  justice  done  to  a  distinguished  orientalist,  even  in 
stripping  a  deformed  imposture  of  its  borrowed  garments. 

We  shall  add  a  few  words  with  respect  to  th^  study  of  Arabic. 
It  is  highly  desirable,  on  various  accounts,  that  a  knowledge  of  this 
noble  and  important  language  should  become  more  common.  Biblical 
learning  and  the  missionary  enterprise  alike  demand  it.  What  we 
most  heed,  is  a  taste  for  the  pursuit,  and  a  concientious  willingness 
to  undertake  the  task.  The  great  deficiency  is  not  so  much  in 
grammars  as  in  men  to  study  them.  We  observe  that  Mr.  Smith, 
tne  American  missionary  now  at  Malta,  has  declined  to  undertake 
an  English  version  of  Ibn  Ferhat's  grammar.  His  views  are  such 
as  might  have  been  expected  from  a  man  of  sense  and  learning. 
It  may,  indeed,  be  stated  as  a  general  truth,  that  translated  gram- 
mars are  as  likely  to  be  hinderances  as  helps.  A  grammarian  can- 
not possibly  explain  the  phenomena  of  a  foreign  language,  except 
by  appealing  to  the  structure  of  his  own,  or  of  that  in  which  he 
writes.  Now,  as  every  language  has  its  peculiarities,  both  great 
and  small,  no  two  can  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  a  third.  Latin 
and  French  agree  where  French  and  English  differ.  The  same 
form  of  speech  in  Latin,  therefore,  which  must  be  explained  to 
English  learners,  may  be  as  clear,  without  elucidation,  to  the 
Frenchman,  as  if  founded  upon  some  fixed  law  of  nature.  Give 
the  latter  the  same  comments  that  you  give  the  former,  and  you 
not  only  do  not  aid  him,  but  you  really  confound  him.  For  we 
need  not  say,  that  the  attempt  to  explain  what  is  perfectly  intelli- 
gible must  have  that  effect.  The  same  remark  may  be  applied  to 
any  other  case.  For  a  familiar  instance,  we  refer  to  J osse's  Spanish 
Grammar,  as  translated  by  Mr.  Sales  of  Cambridge.  The  original 
work  was  designed  for  Frenchmen,  and  as  the  translator,  we  believe, 
is  himself  a  Frenchman,  many  rules  and  statements,  in  themselves 
just,  and  in  their  proper  place  useful,  are  wholly  unintelligible  to 
the  English  reader.  Analogous  cases  will  occur  to  every  scholar, 
abundantly  proving,  that  the  servile  transfer,  not  of  language 
merely,  but  of  rules,  arrangements,  proofs,  and  illustrations,  is 
unfriendly  to  the  only  end  which  grammars  should  promote. 
While  we  believe  with  Dr.  Johnson,  that  the  practice  of  translat- 
ing (in  the  proper  sense,  and  on  an  extensive  scale)  is  injurious  to 
the  purity  of  language,  we  likewise  consider  it  injurious  to  the 
interests  of  sound  and  thorough  scholarship.  To  avoid  the  former 
evil,  we  would  substitute  the  transfusion  of  thoughts  for  the  trans- 
lation of  words.     To  remedy  the  latter,  we  would  have  bilingual 


THE    HISTORICAL   STATEMENTS    OF   THE    KORAN.  611 

scholars  to  study,  sift,  digest,  remodel,  reproduce.  By  this  we  should 
avoid  the  needless  introduction  of  an  uncouth  terminology  and  the 
practical  paralogism  of  attempting  to  explain  ignotum  per  ignotius. 
fey  this  means,  too,  a  freshness  would  be  given  to  our  learned 
works,  very  unlike  the  tang  contracted  by  a  passage  over  sea.  This 
too  would  serve  to  check  the  strong  propensity  of  young  philolo- 
gists towards  a  stagnant  acquiescence  in  the  dicta  of  their  text- 
books, which  is  always  attended  with  the  danger  of  mistaking 
form  for  substance,  and  forgetting  the  great  ends  of  language  in  the 
infinitesimal  minutiae  of  a  barren  etymology.  In  Germany,  that  great 
philological  brewery,  the  extreme  of  stagnation  has  been  long  ex- 
changed for  that  of  fermentation,  and  although  we  do  not  wish  to  see 
the  eccentricities  of  foreign  scholarship  imported  here,  we  do  beHeve 
that  much  of  their  advancement  may  be  fairly  traced  to  their  con- 
tempt of  mere  authority,  their  leech-like  thirst  for  indefinite  improve- 
ment, and  their  practice  of  working  up  the  material  of  their  learn- 
ing into  new  and  varied  forms  without  much  regard  to  pre-existent 
models.  Let  us  imitate  their  merits  and  avoid  their  faults. 
Let  us  mount  upon  their  shoulders,  not  grovel  at  their  feet.  Let 
us  take  the  stuff  which  they  provide  for  us,  and  mould  it  for  our- 
selves, to  suit  our  own  peculiarities  of  language,  habit,  genius, 
wants,  and  prospects.  Let  our  books  be  English,  not  Anglo- 
French  nor  Anglo-German.  Let  us  not  make  them  as  the  Chi- 
nese tailor  made  the  tar's  new  jacket,  with  a  patch  to  suit  the 
old  one. 

To  return  to  grammars — though  what  we  said  above  may  seem 
directly  applicable  only  to  those  written  in  one  language  to  explain 
another,  it  applies,  a  fortiori,  to  what  are  called  native  grammars, 
which  are  merely  designed  to  reduce  into  systematic  form  the  know- 
ledge previously  gathered  by  empirical  induction.  To  those  who 
have  become  familiar  with  a  language  in  the  concrete  by  extensive 
reading,  such  works  are  highly  useful  and  need  no  translation. 
To  beginners  they  are  useless  ;  for  they  presuppose  the  knowledge 
which  beginners  want.  Besides,  they  are  untranslatable,  as  Mr. 
Smith  justly  affirms,  with  special  reference,  indeed,  to  Bahth  El 
Mutalib,  of  which  we  know  nothing  but  through  him.  We  may 
add,  however,  that  even  if  that  work  admitted  of  translation,  it 
would  scarcely  throw  more  light  upon  the  subject  than  de  Sacy's 
lucid  digest  (pre-eminently  lucid  after  all  deductions,  drawbacks, 
and  exceptions),  the  fruit  of  most  laborious  and  long  continued 
.  study  of  numerous  authorities — a  work,  too,  which  has  had  more 
indirect  influence  on  biblical  philology  than  many  are  aware  of.* 
When  de  Sacy  has  been  mastered  and  exhausted,  he  may  very 
fairly  be  condemned  and  thrown  aside.  To  those  who  would  pre- 
fer a  shorter  grammar  and  the  Latin  tongue,  Rosenmuller's  book 
may  be   safely  recommended.     It  is  Erpenius  re-written,  with 

*  No  one,  we  think  who  is  familiar  with  de  Sacy's  noble  work,  can  fail  to  recog- 
nise its  agency  in  giving  form,  perspicuity,  and  richness,  to  the  famous  Lehrgebaude 
of  Gesenius. 


612  THE    HISTORICAL    STATEMENTS    OF    THE    KORAN. 

improvements  from  do  Sacy.  Meanwhile  we  look  with  somd 
impatience  for  the  forthcoming  work  of  Ewald,  whose  acuteness, 
ingenuity,  and  habits  of  research,  afford  the  promise  of  a  masterly 
performance. 

It  must  be  owned,  however,  that  we  do  need  reading-books,  or 
readers,  for  beginners.  Most  of  the  Chrestomathies  prepared  in 
Europe  appear  to  presuppose  some  acquaintance  with  the  Koran.* 
For  us  this  will  not  answer.  Here,  where  the  study  is  at  most 
but  nascent,  we  need  an  introduction  to  the  Koran  itself.  We 
have  often  thought,  that  a  selection  of  historical  passages  from 
that  book,  reduced  to  order,  with  grammatical  notes  and  a  voca- 
bulary, would  answer  the  ends  of  a  chrestomathy  for  mere  begin- 
ners most  completely.  It  is  highly  important  that  the  learner's 
first  acquaintance  with  the  written  language  should  be  formed 
upon  the  Koran.  Amidst  all  the  dialectic  variations  of  a  tongue 
which  is  spoken  from  the  great  Sahara  to  the  steppes  of  Tartary, 
there  is  a  large  proportion,  both  of  words  and  phrases,  every- 
where the  same.  These  are  the  words  and  phrases  of  the  Koran 
which  religious  scruples  have  preserved  from  change,  and  reli- 
gious use  made  universally  familiar.  He  who  is  acquainted  with 
the  language  of  the  Koran,  has  the  means  of  oral  access  to  any 
Arab,  and  almost  to  any  Mussulman.  He  may  not  understand  as 
yet  the  many  variations  of  the  vulgar  from  the  sacred  tongue, 
much  less  the  local  diversities  of  speech  ;  but  he  has  the  founda- 
tion upon  which  these  rest,  the  stated  formula  from  which  they 
are  mere  departures.  He  will  also  have  acquired  a  measure  of 
that  knowledge,  with  respect  to  facts  and  doctrines,  which  no 
man  can  dispense  with,  who  would  either  vanquish  or  convert  the 
Moslem. 

•  See,  for  exMaple,  the  preface  to  de  Sacy's  Chrestomathie  Arabe,  Paris,  1826. 


WILEY  &  PUTNAM'S  LIST  OF  BOOKS. 


HISTORY   AND   BIOGRAPHY. 


I. 

LETTERS  AND  SPEECHES  OF  OLIVER  CROMWELL. 

With  Elucidations.    By  Taonxs  Carltlk.    2  vola.  16mo.    $2  50. 
n. 

THE  LIFE  OF  NAPOLEON  BUONAPARTE. 
By  William  Hazlitt.    3  vols.  16ino.    (Nearly  ready.)    $3  00. 

III. 
LIFE  AND  CORRESPONDENCE  OF  JOHN  FOSTER. 

Author  of  "  Decision  of  Character."    By  J.  E.  Ryland. 

With  Notices  of  Mr.  Foster  as  a  Preacher  and  Companion.    By  John  Shkphard. 

2  vols,  in  one.    12mo.    91  50. 


LIFE  OF  THE  GREAT  CONDE. 

By  Lord  Mahon.    1  vol.  16mo.    $1  00. 

V. 

AUTOBIOGRAPHY  OF  BENVENUTO  CELLINI. 

Translated  by  Thomas  Roscob.     With  Notes.     1  vol.  16mo.     $1  25. 

VI. 

GOETHE'S  AUTOBIOGRAPHY. 

Edited  by  Parks  Godwin.    1  vol.  16mo.    (Vol.  2  in  preparation.)    fl  25. 

VII. 

GOETHE  AND  SCHUXER'S  CORRESPONDENCE. 

Translated  by  Grorob  H.  Calvbrt.    1  vol.  8vo.    $ 

vni. 

EARLY  JESUIT  MISSIONS  IN  NORTH  AMERICA. 

By  Rev.  W.  Inoraham  Kip.    16mo.    $1  00. 
IX. 

IZAAK  WALTON'S  LIVES  OF  DONNE,  MILTON,  HOOKER, 
HERBERT,  AND  SANDERSON. 

with  the  Life  of  the  Author.    By  Archdbacon  Zoucb.    Best  edition,  with  Notes. 
1  vol.  16mo.    $1  00. 

X. 

CORTEZ'S   DESPATCHES. 

Lbttbrs  and  Dbbpatchks  or  Hernando  Cortkz.    Translated  by  Hon.  Gkorob 
FoLBOM.    1  vol.  8vo.    $1  25. 

XI. 

WASHINGTON'S  ORDERS. 

Thb  Rbvolutionary  Orders  op  General  Washington.    Now  first 
published.    8vo.    $1  50. 

xn. 

JOURNAL  OF  MISS  ADAMS. 

Journal  and  Correspondence  op  Miss  Adams.    Daughter  of  President 
John  Adams.    2  vols.  12mo.    $1  00. 


WILEY  &  PUTNAM'S  LIST  OF  BOOKS. 


xni. 
HAMILTON  PAPERS. 

The  OfliciAl  and  other  Papers  of  the  late  Major-General  Alezandxr  Hamilton.    Compiled 
from  the  originals  In  the  possession  of  Mrs.  Hamilton.    1  vol.  8vo.    $2  50. 

XIV. 

TRUMBULL'S  AUTOBIOGRAPHY, 

AND     REMINISCENCES     OF     HIS     OWN     TIMES. 
1  vol.  8vo.    $2  00. 

XV. 

NOTICES  OF  THE  WAR  OF  1812. 

By  Majob-Gimkral  Armstrong.    2  vols.  12mo.    $1  50. 

j|%«i:iiMi  XVI. 

GREENHOW'S  NORTH  WEST  COAST. 

Ifemoin,  Historical  and  Political,  of  the  North  West  Coast  of  America  and  the  adjacent 
territory.    With  map  and  geographical  views.    1  vol.  8vo.    $1  50. 

XVII, 

HODGSON'S  NOTES  ON  AFRICA. 

The  Sahara  and  Soudan  in  relation  to  the  Ethnography,  Languages,  History,  tc 
of  those  nations.    8vo.    75  cents. 

XVIII. 

LIFE  OF  REV.  SYLVESTER  LARNED. 

By  Rkv.  R.  Gurlky.    I2mo.  portrait.    $1  25. 
XIX. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  QUAKERS. 

Compiled  from  Standard  Records  and  other  authentic  sources.    By  W.  R. 
Waostaff,  M.D.    $2  00. 


STONE'S  LIFE  OF  RED  JACKET. 

The  Life  and  Times  of  Red  Jacket.    By  Col.  W.  L.  Stone. 


8vOi' 


HISTORICAL  COLLECTIONS  OF  LOUISL\NA. 

By  B.  F.  French.    8vo.  fine.    $1  50. 


THEOLOGY, 


PATRICK,  LOWTH  AND  WHITBY'S  COMMENTARY. 

tae  Bible,  wrlth  a  Critical  Commentary.    By  Patrick,  Lowth,  Arnold,  Whitbt,  AH© 
LowMAN.    First  American  edition.    Complete  in  4  vols.  8vo.    $16  00. 


WORKS  OF  THE  ENGLISH  PURITAN  DIVINES. 

Beautifully  printed  in  ]2mo.,  and  handsomely  bound  in  cloth. 
Each  of  the  volames  will  contain  about  350  pages,  and  one  will  be  published  every  three 
months.    Subscribers  to  the  first  four  volumes  will  receive  them  for 
$1  50,  payable  in  advance.    The  price  to  non-subscrib- 
ers will  be  50  cents  each  volume. 


WILEY  &  PUTNAM'S  LIST  OF  BOOKS. 


The  volumes  will  be  enriched  with  Biographical  Sketches  of  the  Authors,  and  Notices 
upo«  the  character  of  their  worics,  by  the  following  and  other  distinguished  writers : — 

Rkv.  Hugh  Campbell,  London;  Rkv.  James  Hamilton,  London:  Rev.  J.  Angell 
James,  Birmingham  ;  Rev.  T.  W.  Jenkvn,  D,D.,  London ;  Rev.  W.  Cunningham,  D.D., 
Edinburgh ;  Eev.  R.  W.  Hamilton,  LL.D.,  D.D.,  Leeds  ;  Rev.  H.  Cookk,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Belfast ;  Rev.  W.  Urwick,  D.D.,  Dublin  ;  Rev.  W.  Symington,  D.D.,  Glasgow  ;  Rev.  G. 
Redford,  LL.D.,  Worcester ;  Rev.  W.  H.  Stowkll,  Rotherham ;  Rev.  John  Harris, 
Cheshunt 

The  design  contemplated  in  the  present  Scheme  is  to  bring  within  the  reach  of  all 
classes  of  the  religious  public  the  invaluable  writings  of  the  English  Puritan  Divines  ; 
and  while  the  series  will  comprise  works  by  well  known  authors,  such  as  Howe,  Baxter, 
Bcntan,  Charnock,  &c.,  many  others  will  be  printed  now  in  a  great  measure  unknown. 
Every  work  will  be  printed  witAout  abridgment. 

Vol.  1.  Banyan's  Jerusalem  Sinner  Saved,  &c.,  with  Life.    By  Rev.  Jas.  Hamilton. 
"     2.         "  Greatness  of  the  Soul,  &c.,  with  Essay.    By  Rev.  Robt.  Philif. 

"     3.  Howe's  Redeemer  s  Tears,  &c.,  with  Life.    By  Rev.  W.  Urwick. 
"     4.  Baxter's  Call,  Last  Work,  &c.,  with  Essay.    By  Thos.  W.  Jenkyn. 

m. 

BIBLIOTHECA  SACRA  AND  THEOLOGICAL  REVIEW. 

Conducted  by  B.  B.  Edwards  and  E.  A.  Park,  Profbssors  at  Andover,  with  the  special 

aid  of  Dr.  Robinson  and  Propesior  Stcabt.    Published  quarterly 

in  Feb.,  May,  Aug.  and  Nov.    $4  00  per  annum. 

"  This  is,  perhaps,  the  most  ambitious  journal  in  the  United  States.    We  use  the  word 

in  a  good  sense,  as  meaning  that  there  is  no  journal  among  us  which  seems  more  laudably 

desirous  to  take  the  lead  in  literary  and  theological  science.    Its  handsome  type  and 

paper  give  it  a  pleasing  exterior ;  its  typographical  errors,  though  sufficiently  numerous, 

are  so  comparatively  few,  as  to  show  that  it  has  the  advantage  of  the  best  American 

proof-reading;  while  for  thoroughness  of  execution  in  the  departments  of  history  and 

criticism,  it  aims  to  be  pre-eminent." — JV.  T.  Churchman, 

IV. 

ALEXANDER  ON  ISAIAH. 

Pkof.  J.  A.  Alezakdkr'b  Commentary  on  the  Earlier  Prophecies  of  Isaiah.  8vo.   $3  00. 

V. 

PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL   ESSAYS. 
Be-printed  from  the  Princeton  Review.  8vo.  f3  50. 

VI. 

PROFESSOR  BUSH'S  ANASTASIS  ; 

OR  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  THE  BODY  UNSCRIPTURAL  AND  UNREASONABLE. 
ISmo.    «1  00. 

vn. 

JUNKIN  ON  THE  OATH. 

The  Oath,  a  Divine  Ordinance;   its  Origin,  Nature,  Ends,  Efficacy,  &c. 
1  voUlSmo.    63  cents. 

vni. 

VOLTAIRE  AND  ROUSSEAU  AGAINST  THE  ATHEISTS. 


CONFESSIONS  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE. 

Translated  into  English.    I  vol.  8vo.    75  cents. 


CHEEVER  AND  LEW^S's'"' DEFENCE 
PUNISHMENT. 

1  vol.  12mo.    50  and  75  cents. 


OF    CAPITAL 


WILEY  &  PUTNAM'S  LIST  OF  BOOKS. 


XI. 

FOWNE'S  PRIZE  ESSAY. 

Chemistry,  as  Ezemplifyinc  the  Wisdom  and  Beneficence  of  God.    1  vol.  12ino.  50  cents. 

XII. 

BASIL  MONTAGU'S  SELECTIONS 

From  the  works  of  Taylor,  Latimer,  Hall,  Milton,  Barrow,  South,  Brown, 
Fuller,  and  Bacon.    50  cents. 

XIII. 

TURNER'S  COMPANION  TO  GENESIS; 

A      COMPANION      TO      THE      BOOK      OF      GENESIS. 
By  Samuel  H.  Turner,  D.D.    1  vol.  8vo.    $1  00. 

XIV. 

LYRA  INNOCENTIUM  : 

THOUGHTS   IN  VEKSE  ON  CHRISTIAN  CHILDREN,  THEIR  WAYS 

AND    THEIR   PRIVILEGES. 

By  Rev.  John  Kebli.    Author  of  the  Christian  Year.    12mo.    75  cts.  and  $1  00. 

"  All  mothers  shoald  read  and  study  this  Christian  work,  which  brings  to  us  in  innn- 

merable  channels  from  the  sacred  sources  of  the  Bible  and  the  church,  those  influences 

which  lead  humanity  to  Its  highest  culture." — Morning  Jfeios. 

XV. 

WAYLEN'S  ECCLESIASTICAL   TOUR  IN  THE  U.  STATES. 

8vo.    $2  00. 
"  Mr.  Waylen  has  embodied  much  Interesting  matter  in  these  reminiscences,  much  that 
will  interest  all  readers,  but  of  particular  value  to  Churchmen."— CoTOTnercio/  Advertiser. 

XVI. 

WINSLOW'S  SERMONS. 

THE  SERMONS  AND  POETICAL  REMAINS  OF  REV.  B.  W.  WINSLOW. 
Edited  by  Bishop  Doane.    12mo. 


POETRY. 


I. 

MARY  HOWITT'S  BALLADS. 
A  new  collection,  published  shnultaneously  in  London  and  New  York.    50  cents. 

II. 
SAMUEL  LOVER'S  SONGS. 

Bongs  and  Ballads,  by  Samuel  Lover,  including  the  Songs  of  the  "  Irish  Evenings.* 

Revised  by  the  Author,  with  additions.    Complete  edition.    16mo.    50  cents. 

III. 

PROVERBIAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

By  Martin  Farquhar  Tuppkr.    16mo.,  cloth.    75  cents. 

KEATS'S  POETICAL  WORKS. 

1  vol.,  I6mo.,  cloth.    $1  00. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 

University  of  California 

Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1  -year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made 
4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 
FEB  0  3  2004 


DD20   15M  4-02 


•3ton    review 
^ys,    taeolos^ical 

P72 

and  misoel 

laneous. 

..if\i\  24  \^^o 

iJUcy-^MliH  10  19«| 

^y^ 

^^ 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


